Hey, guys, what's up. This is Call and I'm here with the
Orthodox Squad and we're back for another episode. Today. We've got a very
special guest is Jay Diet. We're going to be disting the key the key
points of thought vigence between our theology and Catholic theology, seeing as we do
live in a Weston world and that is a pretty major way of how our
society is kind of function. Jay, could you stop by introducing yourself for
those of us that don't know who you are. Yeah, my name is
Jay Dyer. I do a website called Jason Elysis dot com. I've been
doing that for about ten eleven years. I cover a lot of geopolitics.
I cover a lot of philosophy, film reviews. I do a lot of
media work with people like Alex Jones. I've done a Tucker special recently.
So I cover a lot of areas. But we also do a lot of
religious debates, apologetics, and particularly focusing on things like atheism, Islam and
m Catholicisms, difference between us and the difference with us an orthdoxy that between
us between Roman orthoxy as one franc Yeah, so I'm sure like lots of
our fan base would know who you are, but you can't be I'm sure
lots of new viewers hopefully come see this and they find out go down the
rabbit hole. And I've seen so many converts that are converted because they've watched
your content, So it's always a LUs And I think I'm going to just
start by yeah, and also to add that not only converts, even like
create the Orthodox people from Serbiany, We're like, yeah, what's shay And
they got back in the church things. That's good. That's good. So
I'm going to start by just going for the elephant in the room. The
main issue of divergence is people, primacy and authority. Jay, could you
start by elaborating than that? And yeah, So I do agree with that,
but I think that the reason that papal premisee came to be has theological
predecessors. So it's actually a more fundamental theological difference that's the result even of
the papal stuff. So certainly Philioqua and all that matters, and certainly the
position of the Bishop of Rome matters, but I think that prior to the
ecclesiological differences in ten fifty four or whatever, there's already beginning to be a
divergence between how the two groups would see the Triad. So when we begin
to have more of an Augustinian approach to the triad in the West after successive
centuries after you know, after Toledo, after the Carolinian period, the Franks
go in an explicitly Philioquist direction. And so the more that we see that
Augustinian theology dominating the West, the less we see the prevalence of the monarchia
of the Father. Now that doesn't mean that Augustine explicitly and totally denied the
monarchy of the Father, but it certainly gets It becomes a difficult thing in
this position, and there's definitely a difference between the Cappadocean model of the triad
that's accepted at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constant Noble one and the Augustinian model.
So actually root the ecclesiological divergence in the triad in the theological differences,
because that will really condition what we call the ordo theology, the order of
theology, and that means the way that we go about in terms of first
principles, doing our theological dogmatics. So you'll notice the Church historically did dogmatics
from the place of Trinitarian theology, first with nice and constant Noble one,
and then Christology for the next success of councils, all the way up until
eight and nine. And you could argue even well, I'm excusing at seven
and eight, and you could argue the ninth Palamite Synods of a while all
are really just the outworkings of correct Trinitarian and Christological formulations, so basically the
verging triads. In my view, I agree with the argumentation of doctor Philip
Scharrard in his book Church Papacy Schism, where he notes that this imbalance in
the notion of the triad is partly what gives way to the imbalance and ecclesiology.
So you had an older model the first thousand years of the Church that
I think is the Orthodox model which it's maintained, which is synodality and collegiality.
There's canonical privileges for certain bishops. But what we get with the rise
of the Philioque, and I don't think it's accidental in the West, is
also the rise of the place of the Bishop of Rome, and Scharrard I
think convincingly argues that there's a metaphysical imbalance in the theology of Rome. That
law also leads to this sort of wonky wacky ecclesiology that plays itself out in
the rise of the papacy being an autocrat, and this is admitted. Now,
this amazing part is that multiple Roman Catholic historians and theologians like looks like
Kongar first after nine hundred years Phosian schism by Dvornik. I mean, these
have really led the Roman Catholic Church to kind of do a revisionist stance on
the first thousand years. And admit, if you saw the recent Alexandrian document
that we did a live stream on, this is a papally approved commission basically
admitting about ninety nine five percent of the Orthodox points on ecclesiology in the first
millennium. So I would take that to be pretty significant. I mean,
the fact that Rome is admitting these things in these theological admissions is pretty pretty
damaging, especially how that contradicts what stated very clearly at Vatican One, and
that's of course the Roman Catholic Council where they dogmatize the position of the papacy.
So we have really these admissions. And I don't mean I want to
be clear because people must understood. I guess when I was saying this on
a livestream with Sneck and Day or the other day. I'm not saying that
the Alexandria document from Rome means that it's now time to unite with Rome.
I am saying that the Alexandria Document admits our positions and therefore means that the
Roman Catholic Church was incorrect, incorrect, primarily in a Vatican one. And
the way that system works is that if Vatican one is correct, the system
is incorrect. You see, it's not a piecemeal thing because it's premised on
the auction of the papacy. The papacy is the means by which you identify
the true Church, and the Roman Catholic system and the Vatican One which dogmatize
that point is false, then their whole conception of the church is false.
And again the eighty Document and the Alexandria Document are essentially admitting our points,
and so therefore Roman Catholicism cannot be true even on its own document, in
its own formulations. So what do we have here, Well, we have
again rival systems within systems. So my view of the Latin Church is,
if you read the Michael Welton book, is a great chapter on the Gregorian
Reforms, which is what Konggar admits was a radical revolution in the structure of
the church in the West. The Gregorian Reforms are really where we get the
Franco papal medieval notions of the papacy and the pope as this autocrat and geopolitical
figure. Right, we have documents like dictatas Pope, which is a famous
document outlining all of these kind of outlandish things and claims that are necessary for
you to believe to be saved about the temporal power of the papacy. Likewise,
sanctum makes temporal supremacy a doctrine that is necessary for salvation as well.
If you do not submit to the temple supremacy of the Bishop of Rome,
you cannot be saved. When I'm saying to them, is adamantly clear about
that. So I think that we can see that the Roman Catholic position itself
on the temporal powers has just exploded right after the eleventh century due precisely to
these factors spiritual, theological and geopolitical. All of those play into how we
got the modern papacy as we know it, that evolves and develops even according
to their own system, all the way up until the time about it can
one that Newman idea of development that's just fundamentally different from what we have in
the Orthodox view, which is synodality, collegiality, the equality of bishops.
But there might be canonical privileges that are given in certain councils, and we
see this at Nicea when it ranks Rome, and then you know what,
Alexander or Rome, Alexandria Antioch right, And then we get the question later
on of New Rome a constant the number one, and the cannons has given
the place next to Old Rome. That's not accepted at Chalcedon by Leo because
Leo says that it's unfair to Alexandria to automatically rank New Rome second, and
it has nothing to do with papal supremacies. So papal apologies have taken Cannon
twenty eight of Chalcedon as an example of Oh look, Leo is rejecting cannons
because he has the ultimate theory as a pope to decide what canons behind the
church that's not at all what happens. He's appealing to the fact that Nicia
gave Alexandria the second place, and so it's not fair to do that.
Later on, however, the Roman Church did eventually accept Constantinople as second to
Old Rome, namely the papacy. So what this shows us is that nothing
about this canonical structure is inherently magically from God, I mean, in divine
providence. There's no divine law that says that because Rome is first in the
canons or first in the chemical councils, that it is infallible or any of
the other Vatican One claims. And again, you know, the recent documents
bear out the bear out this fact. So obviously we could go a lot
more into that, but I think just to get back to that theological point,
you know, the Philioquay doctrine is tied into this and is is part
and parcel with the rise of the medieval papacy because the medieval era, what
we actually see is like theologically speaking, it's almost as if the church the
pope sends the spirit to the Church. And that's because there's this imbalance in
the triad to where the Holy Spirit ends up being subject, being subordinated excusing,
because he supposedly now lacks the power of causing a person, which is
in Roman callity theology somehow the defining characteristic of what makes the son equal to
the father. So the son is equal to the father because he sends the
Holy Spirit. So if equality of divinant he is now tallied up on the
basis of being a cause, then the Holy Spirit is less divine because he
doesn't cause anybody. He doesn't cause a person, so he lacks an essential
power or property that the father and the son share together. And again that
whole model, whether it's Saint Photius and the distagogy or whether it's Saint gregor
Palamos in the Appodictic treatise, that whole model is skewed precisely because it is
removing the notion of hypostatic property and what is proper to the father in terms
of what picks out his person. Cause picks out the person of the father.
Therefore there cannot be a co cause or a secondary cause in the sun.
So the son cannot participate in the hyposthetic property of what picks out the
father. And that was said by Saint Photius a long ago. It was
said by Saint Gregor Palamas, and the Appeticular treatise basically rewording and restating a
lot of the argumentation of Saint Photius, and that's where we are. So
what happens, Well, if the spirit gets subordinated, then now the Holy
Spirit is something that is not fully present unless Rome grants it to you,
you see, and that's exactly what happens in the medieval period when the Roman
bishop now has to appoint every bishop in the world. There's no way that
didn't. Everybody knows this didn't exist in the first thousand years. In fact,
the recent Alexandria document admits this. The Roman bishop didn't confirm all bishops
in the world. But if you think that the Roman bishop is really the
conduit of the Holy Spirit, right then it actually kind of makes sense and
so that's why he would want that power and that authority. But really this
is just a deformation and an aberration that has led to Vatican One into now
a lot of the embarrassment. I mean, if people are really honest about
it, Chad and Alexandria are really embarrassments because they're really just admitting most of
our positions. So I've seen the charity document before, I can't. I
mean it's pretty I think it's a bit pretty incriminating. And the other one
is I wanted to point out that the Varnick is actually a Catholic story and
theology an authodox one, and that book the Photinskis in delves into the topic
and basically says, you know, you guys are right about Photius. So
I think that's very interesting. And to some up for you guys watching what
Jay said about the video, quay, what's happening there is it spits the
singular source in the Godhead into by the double possession, and it thus fits
the adoration to two adorations of two divinities. So the essence is one because
it's one source and one Father. So to confess two principal sources is to
confess two essences in a diad, and absolutely argumentation of fogus correct. So
by adoration, I mean the worship given by man to God the Father by
worshiping his son in spirit and truth. So worship is solely a creaturely act.
God is both a monad and the triana, so he's a monad in
essence, but tried in how his persons relate to creation. The Trinity is
a monad in essence, but not in persons. So we have to make
this distinction, which I feel like people say, you know, that's why
we're not wholly fear is stick because we do believe that in essence God is
one. So a short bit of is that apologetics there when they say that
you you're a polytheist because there's three gods. No, there's three persons in
the one God. That's a distinction that has to be made. So basically
what's happened is that what Jay is saying that because of the filioc where we
now have this notion that developed over time of people primacy and authority, and
these two issues have caused a plethora of other theological difference that I've continued to
diverge over the years in there's completely different ways. One of these things is
I think, well, we all know the Immaculate Conception in purgatory. Could
you explain when you think that, because okay, just a quick point.
I find that with some of these doctrines, like the Immaculate Conception, they're
very very recent. Why do you think they've decided now they want to bring
them up. Jay, that's a good point and a good question. Sometimes
I think that Roman Catholicism historically will define a doctrine because they see it expedient
at that time to do so. So, for example, even though this
is not a dogma, certain devotions, for example, will rise at a
time when they see it useful for combating a Protestant error. So, for
example, and the counter Reformation, Roman Catolic Church and the Jesuits were very
much into promoting the notion of eucharistic adoration. So adoration arose as a kind
of a full piety way to counteract the argumentation of the reformers. I think
likewise, when it comes to doctrines like the Immaculate conception, that might be
a that might have had a political expedient component at that time that the Roman
Church wanted to sort of beef up. It's a it stances against certain things.
I think vat It Canto is an example of this as well, where
Vada Can two is a politically geopolitically obedient council as well. It happens because
they think that it'll be this way to lure Protestants back, to lure Orthodox
back. So that's a big part of the motivations I think at times why
they do it. But I think that another reason is that some of these
doctrines are novelties and their aberrations, and so when they become controversial because of
the nature of the Roman Catholic system, if the papacy can define it,
then it's supposedly no longer up for debate. Right. So if if there's
a controversial doctrine, by the nature of that system, if it might expose
or cause embarrassment or damage to the system, too dogmatically define it would then
for the Roman Catholic Pius it would end the debate. So that's another reason
they do it, is that, uh, all right, people are questioning
this thing. That's kind of absurd, so let's let's dogmatically define it.
I mean, those would be my guesses as to why something is that late.
Another reason it's late is that it doesn't have early testimony. I mean,
we shouldn't overlook the obvious, which is that the immaculate conception is bound
up with a very rigorous Augustinian view of libido dominande and human anthropology. It's
also bound up with Augustine's confusion of nature in person, in anthropology and in
the triad as well, and so you're going to get this mass down off
of you. That then affects his view of the status of infants, you
know, infant baptism, infant damnation, which is admitted in the Papal documents.
By the way, if you look at the Papal the Holy Office of
statement on infant baptism and limbo the limbo children, it admits that this was
really the dominant view after Augustine. And then we get those statements in Denzinger.
I can pull it up if we need to talk about Denzing already.
But there's early Middle Ages begins to temper this doctrine with the Roman cather idea
of limbo of infants. So that's a when the answer I guess to say
that, well, there's just not a lot of early testimony to some of
these things, and so they feel the need, I think, to vindicate
the system as we propped up at all costs, because it's supposed to be
an unfalsifiable system, I mean, the Papal system. Other words, when
they bring it up, sometimes what I find is that they don't care about
the consensus. Patron clearly the Immaculate conception is not the consensus patrim even by
your own scholars. Like if you look at Acquinas, you will get Augustine.
You're the two main guys for you. They don't believe in the Immaculate
conception. Aquinas specifically wrote apologetics against the Immaculate conception. So that's another issue
we diverge. We have a notion of the consensus patron. The reason we
can say that Augustine was wrong about one specific thing, or a different stent
was wrong about one specific thing is because they might have deviated in some way
from the consensus patron. We believe, however, that the consensus of the
Church fathers is not a doctrine that we can just develop later on and turn
into something else. Absolutely another thing also, I think so I just wanted
to say regarding the Immaculate conception, isn't that linked with Also, they have
a different view than us on original sin. They believe in original guilt and
have the idea of original guilt Pine them as well. They will say,
they will say nowadays they don't believe in original guilt, but there are periods
and again that's why that limbo doctrine from the Holy Office is really important because
it does admit that from the time of Augustine up to Gregory the Great,
up until the like maybe nine hundreds or the year one thousand, original guilt
and mass down Nada. That means the damned mass of everybody in Adam,
including infants. That was the normative you in the West. So that's when
they begin to temper it in the Middle Ages with the Limbo of infants doctrine,
which is eventually, by the way, dogmatized. So it's odd to
me that the Holy Office would say that you could now kind of doubt limbo.
You don't have to hold to it, because it's clearly in Denziger is
clearly dogmatic. But and I don't mean to cut you off there, Hattie.
I was just going to say that we have to be careful because if
you say that, oh, you guys believe in original Girl, they will
pull out the modern Catechism, which doesn't which denies original Girl. That's what
I was going to say. It depends on who you're talking to. That's
what I find with catholicis that you could speak to one and they will believe
in a doctrine of original sin. It's almost identical to us. You speak
to another one, it's like, no, they don't, So that's not
I don't know. It's not as united as the papastick things. It brings
unity, but it still allows people to hold completely different theologies and absolutely you
know where united. Well, just look at the fact that you could be
a Uniate or a Melkite and say you only believe in seven echomenical councils and
say that I don't care about the Council Trent and purgatory and all the stuff,
which clearly in the Roman Catolic system you don't have the right to reject
Trent. On the melk Kite official website, I don't know if it was
in Australia or America, it actually said in seven echemenical councils on the diocese
website right the other another thing that was speaking about Limbosa Middle Place. That's
another issue that I want to bring up. Purgatory. We have this thing
called Hades, but it's significantly different from purgatory. So they believe that you
saw on the ghost purification for entering heaven, and we don't share the doctrine
in the same way. It's nuanced, Jake, could you elaborate on that.
Yeah, One important element to not overlook in this in terms of purgatory
is the notion of indulgences. You can't really separate those two views in the
Roman Catholic system, which of course Orthodoxy doesn't have the doctrine of indulgences.
So in the Roman Catholic system they will believe that sin incurs a twofold penalty,
a temporal debt, and an eternal debt. It's an internal debt if
it's a mortal series sin, a temporal debt if it's only a venial sin.
But a mortal sin can also have both temporal and temporal and eternal consequences.
So the basis of the doctrine indulgence is that the debt that you owe
in confession, it can be forgiven when the priest gives you absolution. But
that's only the eternal debt. The temporal debt is still outstanding. And they'll
cite text like where David prays to God that you know he repents for having
your Riah killed, and then God says, I've forgiven you, but the
child will still die, and so they'll see see you still have these payments.
The weird part is that it becomes this system based in the early canons.
Because in the early in the early Church, for example, the cannons,
it would say, you know, if you cheat on your wife,
the bishop might impose a penance of two years where you don't partake at the
Euchrist something like this. Right, So the idea is that, oh,
let's tabulate how days is that. Let's say it's one year. Okay,
so you have a three hundred and sixty five year temporal debt that you owe.
And because in the canons of the ancient Church, a bishop if he
saw you as repentant because he could forgive you. There is the idea that
certain devotions and actions can forgive the temporal debt. So purgatory exists to pay
off the temporal debt that you owe. So maybe you committed a bunch of
sins, you went to confession, you die the next day, but you
haven't paid off the four thousand, three hundred and thirty two days of temporal
payment in purgatory that you owe. I'm not joking. That's how ridiculous it
is, like this weird being counter system. So that's where they derived all
of this, and that in part is why Luther, for example, you
know, railed against Johan tats Old, a monk who is saying, every
time a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs. So
if you pay money for the indulgences, you're getting your loved ones out of
purgatory. And that was an abuse, and it was clearly, you know,
a silly money making racket. So Luther was correct to call that out,
and he's absolutely correct as well that that doesn't exist in the first thousand
years of the Church. There's none of this. There's no payments indulgence system
of a bunch of being counting. It's crazy, but it is what it
developed in the Roman Caolic system, and it is an integral to their theology
because it's bound up with the notion of the temporal debts, as we said,
that are due after and that's what purgatory is really connected to. So
you can't divorce it from that. We have to keep that in mind.
And if you read Saint Mark of Emphasis as Homilies against the Latins after the
Council of Florence, he points out, you know, the absurdity of the
Orthodox not being able to the Orthodox could never accept the a curdity of this
notion of a temporal fire. So that's another important thing we have to keep
in mind, is that there's also this thing as a created fire of God.
Paul says that our God is an all consuming fire. That means God
is an uncreated energy of fire. When the burning bush is burning, it's
not a creative fire, it's the uncreated fire of God's presence. So God
has not I created fire, so there's no there's no notion of this.
Again, it's bound up with the Roman Catholic theology of created grace, so
all of those things are connected. But um yeah, I think that that's
the key thing that we have to remember remember with infant limbo, and it
is dogmatized. I think somewhere in the thirteen hundreds I can find the exact
thing on this, but if you're looking for an I did write an essay
on this, critiquing Taylor Marshall because Taylor Marshall actually fell into a bunch of
mistakes on this, and I went into the development of the Roman Calvic view,
particularly as we get up past limbo in the Middle Ages. I think
it's in the thirteen hundreds being dogmatized infant limbo and then by the time of
the recent Pontypical Commission statement on infant limbo basically being optional. You know why
I just want to bring up is why does this matter for those watching in
matters? Because we have a doctrine called extra Ecclesium, not the salves.
Basically, what that means is that there's only one true church. We have
this idea of one true church. We don't why do we have to spend
our time attacking other Christians dominations when we can just be Orthodox and that then
be Catholic because we actually care about these people. We're telling them so that
they can know that Unfortunately we don't think they're in the Church of Christ.
What the implications of that are in God's hands. But ultimately God established one
true Church for our salvation, and we believe it's found within the One Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is the Orthodox Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church.
And it's a shame because in general, lots of Catholics are very charitable.
People can talk to a Catholic and you know you'd get along fine.
You find that they do lots of charity work. They do lots of good
works. But um, you can say that about anyone. Really, you
can say that about anyone. Mary, did your family come from a Catholic
background? Originally not to put you on the spot or anything, but just
yeah, my um, my mother did. She grew up down in Honduras,
which is where um a lot of half like you know, influence was.
But fortunately her, um, her cousin became an Orthodox priest and because
I think he's like half Arabic and somehow Orthodoxy came down to their any and
he has a Antiochian parish or something like that. I don't quite remember,
but yeah, she said that from what I recalled, my mom has told
me that, Yeah, like the Catholics were very generous, very sweet.
She she had like a lot of the experiences, is like like very faithful
people, you know, but it wasn't like to her, it wasn't complete.
And when she joined the church she felt the wholeness there, you know,
and it's great, like a big thanks to her her cousin, Padre
Jorge forum bringing her into the church. Something I like to think of with
the church, um that you're talking about, it's like there's only one church,
right, And I think of it as like Christ has one bride,
one one bride, the one church. It's silly to say that he would
have multiple brides, you know, exactly one bride that he died for.
Yeah, I would say that. Another way to understand this is that it's
already been refuted this notion in the condemnations of Nestorianism, because Nestorianism doesn't just
apply to the person of Christ himself. That's essentially what the dispute was about.
Nestorius was proposing a dual subject Christology, namely that sometimes the Bible is
telling us about the second person that God had, the Logos active in the
life of Christ, and at other times the scriptures are telling us about this
other separate human subject, Jesus of Nazareth, who exemplifies the human traits crying,
walking, getting hungry, etc. So there's a dual subject Christology in
Nestorius, and the condemnation is based on the hypostatic union of Saint Cyril Ephesus
and in the Fifth and Six Councils, which effectively refute all ideas, all
traces of Nestorianism. So you can't have a dual subject Christology, hypostatic union
means that the two natures come together in the single divine person who has those
natures because it's the second person of the God who becomes a carnate. Hence,
the term the atokos is a refutation of any notion of a dual subject
stology. So what this means then, is that the body of Christ,
the physical body that he took on, which is Paul's consistent model for the
church, is just as localized and just as visible as his body. You
see, So Christ doesn't You can't not. You cannot divide his unique presence
in his body from the incarnation. Thus, you cannot divide his unique presence
in the Church from the single, true, one, Holy Catholic Apostle Orthodox
Church. It's that simple. And so if you divide Christ ecclesiologically, that's
an ecclesiological version of Nestorianism. Oh, Christ is in the Orthodox Church,
but he's also in all these other churches and sects. French theory, it's
branch theory. It's a very toxic branch theories. Like what he said,
very similar to you know, teaching that. I don't know if it's a
bit off a Caveat, it's not exactly the same bit teaches that church has
part of the faith and then when you bring it all together, then you
have the wholeness of the faith, which is just absurd because then that means
that the early Christians didn't have the wholeness of the faith because they were one
church at that time exactly. And it also arises out of Anglicanism, which
was a novelty of Anglicans trying to figure out how they could be a new
state run church as well as being and having some connection to the Church of
the first thousand years. But nobody in the first thousand years proposed anything like
the branch theory. They all teach the Orthodox conception of a single, visible
true church. My question. My question being because I've heard Catholics say preach
the idea of a that they are the one true church, there's no salvation
outside of their church. And also like I guess to go on, like
what are our what are our differences in salvation? Like what's the different ideas
between us in the Catholic idea of salvation? Catholic system is a lot more
precise in terms of these phases and stages and types of grace. There's you
know, operative grace, cooperative grace, there's sanctifying grace. There's all these
different terminology termological distinctions that they have. And in the Roman Catholic system,
it's really kind of a mechanical structure of whether you've paid these debts or not.
And that's why, you know, going back to the system of confession
and whatnot, that's really the structure of how you're legally in good standing or
you're in a debt standing. A lot of that has its origins in terms
of where it departs from us in and some because an some proposes the debt
payment model for redemption. So in his structure and Courtiers Homo, I think
it's been many years since I've read it. I have read it, but
he says, somebody the effect of the Father. You're if God is infinitely
offended, the Father's infinitely offended by sin, which produces an infinite debt,
then it needs to be paid by an infinite person, so the son pays
off the father. That is anti trinitarian. You can't have any actions in
the Godhead which are between two persons and not the third. But once again
you begin to see because of philioque and absolutely simplicity the subordination of Holy Spirit
in that payment method. There's actually a Byzantine Synod that dealt with us in
the eleventh century, not directly because of Anselm, but because of a dispute
within Byzantium where there was a priest who was as a priest are deacon,
but he was basically positing this idea that the offering in the Eucharist is either
from the son to the Father or it's the son offering his humanity to the
entire triad. The Orthodox position was stated to be on the basis of the
liturgy thine own of thine own we offering to thee that it's the second person
that God had offering his humanity to the entire try it. So it is
not the son offering only his humanity to the Father, and so that even
though it's not directly about Augustine or about Reformed theology or classical Protestanism, it
kind of automatically cuts off all of those options. So after Anselm, the
Roman Calolic view develops into again this merit and payment model even further in terms
of all these post Tridentine doctrines and statements in Denzinger. So after Council of
Trent it really becomes codified that it's a matter of when you die, do
you have the accident of supernatural created grace in your soul? And if you
die in that state of grace, then you will go to purgatory pay off
your temporal debts, and then you would go to the beatific vision, which
is to see the essence of God with your intellect. So that's the Roman
Caltholic view of salvation prior to the resurrection. The Orthodox view is different because
we don't have an sell mean doctrine of one person paying off the infinite dad
that you participate in gaining these merits from. We have the notion of participation
in the uncreated energies of Christ. Through participating in his human nature that he
assumed. The human nature that he assumed, he granted to it, he
deified it with his immortal and uncreated deifying energies. John Damascus says, citing
Saint Cyril, or by the way, says the exact same thing in the
Letters Six Senses. Cyril says that the humanity that Christ assumed, he communicates
to it and deifies it with his immortal, uncreated energy. When you partake
of the Eucharist, you are partaking of that deified flesh, Cyril says.
You see, So notice that Cyril does not disconnect the deifying grace that makes
us, you know, one with Christ from the sacraments, meaning the sacraments
of the Orthodox Church, not the sacraments of any church. The Orthodox Church,
so they possess it alone, possesses the deifying, cleansing mysteries. So
for us, that's how we participate into the uncreated life, uncreated glory of
Christ. And that's the process of theosis. So there's a for us.
There is that purification, illumination, and deification process that we all go through
as we progress towards the escaton. So so it's a very different model in
the Roman Catholic system. As I said, it's specifically stated in Aught and
in the Trent that the grace that you get in justification and in baptism and
the Roman Catholic Church and the sacraments is not the uncreated grace of God himself
or the uncreated life of God himself. It is a quote supernatural creation,
a supernatural accident in the soul. So very very different and this idea of
created grace, which is dogmentizing in their system. No matter how many times
they try to deny it, talk around it, it's there. It's dogma.
It's in Denzinger, it's in Trent. No, that's very different,
and we don't believe in the Beati vision because of that. For us,
the resurrection is the final salvation that we're all destined for, and so we
seek a good resurrection based on whether we lived according to the virtues in this
life and loved God and participated in the sacraments, versus this idea of an
intellectual vision of the divine essence. We don't. Creatures do not see the
divine essence. The Orthodox hurt essences. That's an important topic. Also,
I follow off about going more into essence. Like with God's essence, it
refers to God's innermost nature that makes God who is. So it presents like
the unknowable and other aspects of God being beyond our human comprehension. Thank you
ran right. So we believe in Orthodoxy the God essence it's not comprehensible and
cannot be directly experienced by human beings. Right, Hence the Beatific vision isn't
really possible. For the Orthodox what is possible is the direct perception of the
divine energies. And so Maximus says that citing the Cappadocians, that in the
escoton we will have a direct vision of God, but it's the personal energies
that we see and perceive of the logos, the logi, etc. It
is not the inner, unknowable essence of God. So the Ennery distinction is
very fundamental to Orthodoxy, and I argue that is pretty clear that the Roman
Catholic Church dogmatically does not accept the essenceynergy distinction. And you can see this
from many points. The Fourth Laddering Council affirms, for example, the strict
divine simplicity doctrine of Peter Lombard, known as identity thesis. So if we
accept Lombard's identity thesis, and if Trent and other condemned propositions make the point
that in the Roman Catholic system you'd do not participate in uncreated grace, and
if they always stress that the light of table is a created light, we
pretty clearly know their position on this right. It is dogmatic that the grace
Trent says that the grace of justification is not the righteousness by which God himself
is righteousness right, so that it is therefore, as uh as odd says,
a supernatural created substance, I mean accent and soul. So uh,
again, very very different theologies because of again different triads. So I was
I was going to say regarding like energies, wasn't that one of the biggest
I think it was energies and essences? Wasn't that one of the biggest?
Yeah, energy sence distinction. And also how like the I think it's the
Catholics believe you can know God, um use him in on that page.
There we go, so you can see hopefully that I'm holding up the right
one. But that's a little we got fundamentals of Catholic dogma noting that supernatural
grace is a created accident and the soul is that what it says, Yes,
it says, uh yeah, well says sanctifying grace is a created,
supernatural gift really distinct from God. So it's a creature. It is not
gone. Well, uh it was. It was Saint Gregory Palamas when he
had the massive debate between him and wasn't on right synergies. Yes, there
we go also important for the essence ynergy. I mean that book really just
nails it in a hundred pages. But the Tryads is also important too,
if you want to get the Tryads too, because he goes really deep into
the whole, the totality of the Energy's doctrine and the Tryads. And also
to make it clear too that this is not some some fringe doctrine that's over
here in the peripheral thing. It's fundamental, because if you read the appidicted
Treatise on the Procession of the Holy Spirit by Saint Gray Palamus, you'll notice
that the doctrine of the monarchia of the Father and the reason we don't accept
the philioque is the exact same reason that we don't believe in absolute divine simplicity.
And when we have the energies doctrine. In other words, these doctrines
go together, you see. So you can't separate the monarchia of the Father
from the uncreated energies. They go together. It's the point. And I
think when people see that, and not just that in terms of the triad,
but if you notice when you read John Damascus and Saint Maximus and John
Damascus is on the Orthodox Faith. He talks about the energies in book one
in terms of God's relationship to the world and the triad. But in Book
three is where it gets really clear because he applies the two Wills and the
two energies doctrine to Christology, you see. And that's why it's so fundamental
to the Six Council's doctrine affirming Saint Maximus against them Inophysites that two Wills and
two energies the energy's doctrine is principally seen in the incarnation. I mean,
we can talk about in terms of triad, but where the rubber hits the
road is really in Christology, and that's where we really have to see o
way. Actually, like Saint Cyril said in the Two Letters to sixth Census,
it is not the divine essence that is communicated to the human nature of
Christ to deify it. It is the uncreated energy that's transferred and communicated to
the human nature of Christ. Thus, in the Eucharist, it is the
uncreated energy that you're participating in in that deified flesh, you see. So
the easiest way to really nail down the distinction here is again to go from
Christology to sacramentology, and to point out to Roman Catholic you're not eating the
essence of God in the Eucharist, right because they believe the Uchas's body,
blood, soul, and divinity. Because what's the divinity there? Is it
another created grace. Jesus said that we would participate an uncreated life, immortal
life, glory, the same glory that you have with the Father before the
foundation of the world John seventeen. Because it's not a creature. As Palamas
says to Barlean, if all we needed was another creature to be saved,
then the Arians are right, because the Arians said salvation is just another another
created state. The logos who's your moral example is just a creature. Jesus
is a creature. So Arianism is you can be saved by a truly created
thing. No, the teaching of Ephesus, the teaching of our sacramentology,
is that we need God to save us through uncreated life, not another creature,
uncreated immortal life and glory. Dude, why can't I just be a
Scottist. Why can't just Scotus and say I do believe in This is a
great question. Um. So a lot of Uniates will have this out,
and they said, well, I don't really care about all this Palamas stuff,
because I can just choose not to be Atomist, and I can choose
Scotism. And Scotism posits what they call a formal distinction between the divine attributes,
and isn't that close enough to Palamas. The first thing I would say
is that it is true that Scotus is closer to Palamoss just on the notion
of the distinction between the attributes and the essence. But it's not a question
of is that good enough. That's not what orthodox is. You see,
Orthodox is much more than just admitting a formal or quasi real distinction between divine
attributes and divine essence. In other words, the Scotus system still operates within
all of the other parameters of Roman Catholic theology. For example, if you
get a basic text like done Scotus's philosophical writings, you will notice that he
teaches a lot of the same principles that we would reject, like the filioque
created grace, like all of the things that we criticize in the Augustinian system.
So, in other words, just finding one area that is similar to
Palamas It would be like of a Protestant said, hey, and I've met
Protestants like this, Hey, what if I believe in the uncreated energies,
We're on the same page. The uncreated energies don't exist in a vacuum,
you see. They're part of the rest of the Orthodox triadological conception. You
see. The other thing I would say is that it really doesn't matter that
there's people within different schools in the Roman Calolic system, because the Roman Catholic
system is actually aramatized a very strict doctrine of divine simplicity that we could never
accept. So while it might be true that certain people, for example,
Bonaventure, if I recall, I think Bonaventure says in his day he thought
that grace was uncreated. So if that's the case, could we just say
Bonaventure is an Orthodox saint, then we agree with Bonaventure and the Franciscans.
Well, it doesn't work like that because it's not a piecemeal thing. Orthodoxy
is a holistic thing. So you've got to have the uncreated grace in the
sacraments, you gotta have Orthodox ecclesiology, you've got to be in communie with
Orthodox people, it's not good enough just to have a single doctrine, a
single theological point in agreement with us, because conceivably a Protestant could say,
hey, I agree with you guys, I believe in the essence energy sinction.
And some of them will say this, But does that make them orthodox?
No, So it's much more than just that. And again, I
really just don't buy that the Roman Catholic system. Actually, it's like Hadi
said, it seems to be a lot of different types of Roman Catholicism.
So it's like some of the Thomas traads, I mean, in their conception
when Pope Leo made thomasm the official philosophy of the church. You it doesn't
make sense to have these Scotish positions. And again that the fourth ladder in
Council identifies through identity thesis the Peter Lombard doctrine of the attributes being all the
same with one another and with the essence. Then shouldn't Scotus be wrong for
positing a formal distinction because it was already defined that there's not a real distinction.
So I just see this as kind of a clever I mean, I'm
not saying Scotis was trying to destroy I just I think he was working with
probably what he knew, and he probably saw some of the problems in Thomas
m. But that's not enough to be Orthodox. You can hold orthodox theology
and still not be orthox like you could hold one hundred percent will thus not
be part of the canonical body of the Orthodox Church. Great point, great
point, how it is. But what I would really like, honestly,
and this is not taking a job, I'd like a proper definition of what
makes something the pope says infallible because like if they say, you know,
he ratifies a document, whatever it is he speaking, so infallibility is the
fine is when he's speaking in his authority, official capacity in the sea of
Peter. But there's a million ways I can interpret that on faith and morals.
There's the other quale on faith and morals, thank you, But he's
done that before, like dumb diverse as is a people will if a people
will ratified by multiple popes, because they'll say it's not infallible. Now,
if that's not infallible, then what exactly is how does the pope speak infallible
if his own like a document that he's written signed propagated and got multiple popes
after him to sign and propagate as something that's blinding to the church relating to
faith and morals. It's not infallible, and that definition is ultimately bumped absolutely,
and well, I just I just want a proper definition, really,
because oftentimes I'm just talking with a Catholic or they might be a friend or
someone that I know, and I'm you know, bouncing ideas back and forth
and I can't really get any a leewave because I'm like, Okay, do
you believe this, And they're like, oh, that's not infallible. Another
documentar that one. It's not really like some of it's infallible. So if
it's not, or if you have an actual pope that is condemned by a
council, or he wasn't actually condemned even though it's in the acts of the
Council. Yeah, it's also in the next two councils. They also restate
the condemnation of Honorius. To make it very clear, I have yet to
meet Catholic who genuinely believes in people infallibility. And I live in the West
and have lived here for a while already, so a lot of their theology
seems to be like just like a placeholder for like tradition and traditional values,
is usually saying on the podcast. Really, so I mean, I don't
know, I feel like this is maybe like a segue into a different topic.
But right now, most of the people in the Catholic Church that I
can you know, meet and see in the parish that's in the town I
live, they're more focused on being like, you know, progressive and liberal
than anything else. And so that all of these medieval tens and that medieval
theology, which points to a more structured church, is kind of getting worse
down now for you know, a new kind of conception of the church.
It will be more liberal and more lenient now with Pattick and too especially,
so then theology is getting adjusted and the debating style is getting adjusted. So
like they flee from this series of like pipal infallibility or something that's going to
you know, point for a medieval time or a medieval church that was really
rigid and strong. And so now that the church is weak, their theology
is kind of fading and starting to be this kind of Protestant influenced hippie thing
that you know, absolutely, I mean that's that's a great uh summation of
what the practical effects post Vatican Too were and the result of that, I
mean that results from tying the church to geopolitics a thousand years ago. Right,
I mean this is really just the end result, because if the if
the papacy can innovate and you can have revolutions, then it can innovate and
revolve, evolve into the liberal way exactly. I think Justin Popov said this,
right, I mean the papacy, he said, is just European humanism,
which is what you find if you read Vatican Too. It's already kind
of revied in that liberal direction. Like he says Muslims worship the same God,
the Jews worship the same God. Sure this is a hindus um,
but it says, by the way that we have valid sacraments and orders,
which I don't understand because if you go back to I don't know if Florence,
Um, you read what the pope says. It is the schismatic,
the Jew, the heretic cannot be saved and it's in this life he joins
himself to the body of the Catholic Church. Right, these are both communical
councils, and these are both like one of them, he said, directly
from the wood mouth of a pope. So how can they be in contradiction
if they're mutually exclusive statements. They will say that, um, the conception
of the church is not limited to the visible structure of Rome. So this
is why Vatican. Yeah, this is why Vatican too. And now you
notice and m signed them and a contadi domino that you're siting there. It
is limited to the to the visible structure of Rome. So they'll say,
we look, Vatican two says the church subsists in the Roman Catholic Church,
meaning that it also is outside the visible balance the Roman Callic Church, and
a lot of the trag cats, you know, have a big problem with
that phrase in Vatican two subsists in the Roman Callic Church, because it's obviously
contradicted. Well, here's their here's their ex coping for that. The cope
is well, um, because we believe in valid sacraments outside the visible structure
of the Roman Catholic Church. This then allows and opens the door for,
via the Augustinian notion of x Opera apperato, the possibility of people being united
to the Church in heterodox communions. And so what they've done at that point
to depart from the Orthodox conception of the sacraments is that they've separated the faith
from the celebration of the sacrament. Right, So, in other words,
you can have the sacraments now even without the faith. And that's why the
Roman Catholic Church dogmatized that an atheist or a Muslim can baptize, right.
That's foreign to the Orthodox Church because of the difference, a different sacramentology that
didn't go the full route of Augustinianism. So this gets really precise and really
nuanced, and people get really confused over this. But the doctrine of x
opera apperato was Augustine's attempt to answer the Donatis, and a lot of what
he said was good and was a correct answer to the absurd rigorism of the
Donatists. They were kind of crazy. But not everything that Augustine argued and
said is what the Orthodox Church accepted. Because again it's from Augustine's doctrine of
ex opera alvarado that we get the idea that you can have atheists and Muslims
baptizing people. And why do they think that, Well, so they come
up with the definition in the Roman Caloic Church that a sacrament is matter form
and intention. So as long as the atheist has the intention to do what
the Roman Caloic Church does, he can baptize is absurd. I don't know
how how does an atheist have the intention to do a thing that he doesn't
believe in. I mean, it's just absurd. But this is the Scholastic
just absurdity that their sacramentology involved into. And the reason that's relevant to Vatican
too, and salvation outside the church is that it's that notion of the possibility
of the severance of the ritual from the doctrines and from the faith. Right
because the Orthodox view my understanding, you can't have great scious sacraments apart from
the faith. But that's precisely what this system does, is it severs those
two things so that you can now have the gracious celebration of the sacrament outside
the church. Now, the irony is that Augustine himself, even though he
admits that it might be a gracious celebration of the sacrament outside the church,
the fact that your inheresy is a preventative, it's a block to the grace.
So the grace is president, it's there when you're baptized in the Protestant
Church in the Augustinian view, as long as it's in the name of the
Trinity. But because you're in a Protestant heterodox confession, that grace which has
been applied to you is you're prevented from benefiting from it, so you're still
you're still heterodox. And that's why Augustine can have that position and still strongly
believe in extra ecclasion cellos. So that develops though over time because the Roman
Calolic Church, through various disputes and papal pronouncements, says well, look,
there's also baptism of desire, baptism of blood, baptism of fire right that
we experience, and so there's there's eventually there's statements that will could a person
in another religion or in another country have the desire for what they know to
be the truth and therefore that count as God sending them the grace of the
church. So this is where they start going into that direction, and then
they come to the idea basically if you was it for Telly Tuti, the
recent encyclical of Francis it basically places the Roman Catholic Church as the center of
a concentric rings of world religions that are all in varying degrees in communion with
Rome. So basically Romans in the mental in the middle. And so now
the Pope isn't just the head of the Christian world, he's actually kind of
the head of all of the world religions secretly, you see. So outside
of the Roman Catholic circle, you have the Orthodox circle because they're closest to
Rome, but they're not fully with Rome, but they have seventy of Rome.
Then we have Anglicans and Protestants, right, they're the next circle out.
They have maybe sixty fifty percent of Rome. Then we get the Muslims.
And that's why for Telly Tuti included prayers that Unitarians could pray unbelievable.
That's why the Roman Collity Church has created the Abu Dhabi Multi Faith Center with
Jews, Muslims, and Christians together worshiping the one True Monotheist, a God
that's not the one true Monotheist of God. The one true Monotheist of God
is the Father that the Lord Jesus called upon, that you only access through
Jesus in the spirit. It's the triad that there is no one true,
monotheistic, generic God. Another thing is people think that for some reason we
hate Augustine. We don't hate Augustine, just isn't in Foy. He's one
of five greatest Saints. We don't reject all of his theology either, we
accept the post majority of it. And it would that it gets thrown awn.
This kind of debate a lot, which in essence you should do it.
It's be charitable, but be charitable and nowadays are synonymous that just stop
talking. I don't like it. I don't you what you have to say.
What's the last thing I was going to go to is? I find
that there's the last topic before we just have some short questions that we about
up is so questions that audience members asked just go through the real quick.
But before that I find they have a very scholastic approach to everything. That's
the last distinction I want to make. Everything is kind of a legal system,
which you don't find with orthodoxy in the same way. We don't reject
reason, of course not, but we don't have to break everything down into
meaningless logic. Because there is an aspect of God that's not it's beyond our
comprehension, is beyond logic. Could you elaborate on that bit for us?
Another good example of this is the sacraments as the mysteries. Right, So
certainly we can talk about boundaries for the sacraments, but there's no Orthodox notion
of the definite. The scientific definition of a sacrament matter form and intention.
That's the Roman Catholic scientific definition that comes out of the Scholastic period, like
you're saying. And for the Orthodox view, it's not that we can't talk
about these things, but think about the way the Roman Catholics view the euchris.
For them, the us the matter, form and attention of the euchris
is the words of consecration of the priests. So they leave out the epiclesis
they don't think the applicasis has anything to do with the validity and the graciousness
of the euchris. Again, which is again kind of stilly. How could
the calling down the Holy Spirit not be essential to the sacraments and their grace?
It's silly, But they were searching for a scientific definition to make it
clear when and where there is a actual sacrament being performed, including by atheists,
and Muslims. And this is where we get into the absurdities, which
again this is this is their view. I'm not being I'm telling you faithfully
what the Roman Catholic position is. If you were a Roman Catholic priest and
the day that you were ordained you became a Satanist, Let's say you apostatize
the day you were ordained as Roman Callic priest, they believe that you can
forever confect actually and really and truly the Euchrist. You could sit there all
day long confecting the Euchrist. It is really the body, blood, and
soul, divinity of Christ. To defame it, to blasphemy, that's absurd.
Again, there's no celebration of the sacrament outside of the faith, you
see, and the Roman Catholic system is premised on that, and that is
what leads to that's the priest subposition behind a lot of the Vatican Two notions
about you know, these other religions having salvific graces and whatnot. Anyway,
that was way i'll topic. I'm sorry I got back into that, but
I did want to make that point about you know, the confecting the Eucharist,
because it's another way to illustrate the difference between our view and there being
the sack Um, what was the question I got lost august oh Augustine,
Yeah, so yeah, I think I mean Augustine has stated to be a
father in the Fifth Council. Um, and then they don't list all of
his works. I think they list the anti Manichean works as exemplary Orthodox works.
You notice they don't mention all of his works. Right, um,
Donatism is condemned. I think that. I think Donatis has mentioned specifically as
a heretic of the Fifth Council as well, But that doesn't mean that everything
Augustine taught about the sacraments is there for Orthodox dogmatics. So you know,
it's just like you said. If anything, I think, go ahead the
same with anyone in Saint. We don't absolutely Saint to be infallible. It's
census, patron, the good census of the fathers. Absolutely invisals can be
wrong, correct. Budias says, uh, you know, if you read
the mystagogy, he doesn't say that the Saint, the Church fathers, and
the saints never made errors. He says that we should overlooked the errors and
be charitable. But overlook kingdom doesn't mean we don't we lie about it and
we don't admit that they made mistakes. Right. For example, in the
Ambigua, Saint Maximus is correcting certain opinions that Originism had seeped into the church
to create right, so originism, I'm not saying that all the church fathers
the cabinations were Originists, but they were influenced by origin and so some of
the conclusions, for example, Saint Gregornis's statements about a puckettstasis could be read
in a heterodox way. And so Sat Maximus writes the Ambigua and he says,
look, here are ways to clear up these ambiguities and even at times
mistakes and the church fathers. So there's nothing wrong with or it's it's not
impious to be honest about admitting that certain church fathers made mistakes. And like
hat he said, it's about the consensus of the fathers, not the Roman
Catholic or Protestant model of picking one guy. You'll notice the tendency of the
Roman Catholic model is let's pick Augustine in all of our theology builds on him.
Let's pick a quintas all of our theology then builds on him, and
then also by the way, the pope. You see, so it's always
kind of picking this guy. That's the guy right there. Right. That's
the opposite of the sonodal ecumenical council model, where if you go to say
Constantinople one, yes it's sonodal, and yes there are figures that stand out
as important theologians like the Cappadocians, but it's still sonodal. And Augustine said,
I submit my book on the Trinity to the Church to decide. By
the way. He didn't say, I'm going to send it to the pope
and he can tell everybody what's right and wrong. Right, he said,
I submit it to the decision of the universal Church in book three and so
what happened, Well, they did the church accept in Toto everything that the
Augustins said about the twiney. No, it went with the Cappadocian model of
the Trinity at Constantinople one. Well, I think we're gonna wrap that up
there before we complete the end. I'm just gonna ask for like one or
two sentenced answers to some of the questions that people ask us to ask you.
So the first question is, Um, I didn't know. I didn't
completely understand this one, but I'll ask it anyways. Do you think that
psychosymatic prayer is odd or superfluous? I think that may be referring to hissy
cousin. I'm more certain. Do you understand well, if it's if it's
referring to the tradition of Saint gregor poalum Us, No, that's Orthodox.
Um. Do you find just elaborating on that question, do you find it
repetitive or is that a good It is repetitive, but that's a good thing.
What are your thoughts on it? Um? I think that if people
are moving into doing that, they should consult their spiritual father. Um.
So you know that's a practice that people don't typically dive into right away,
or if they're new to Orthodox or something like that. So I would say
consult your spiritual father on that topic. I'm not going to tell people what
to do, but I think there's a place for repetitions in prayer because Jesus
doesn't say all repetitions bad, He just says vain repetition true. And next
question is what translations of scripture would you recommend? That people just stay clear
of because there's people, many people translate the Bible into English. What are
there any that you think are just completely Yeah, I would just stay away
from all of the Protestant translations and anything that's new U. I typically just
use the Orthodox Study Bible, and I know there's the Eastern Orthodox Bible,
so those are probably be the best. I would stay away from everything else.
I mean, if you're if you're a scholar academic, you might could
utilize, you know, some of the Roman Calaric translations, like the New
Jerusalem Bible or something like that, but that wouldn't I would just use that
maybe as a cross reference. I wouldn't make that like my primary Bible.
And could you just give me a word on Oregon? What are your thoughts
on you know, bringing up with you on what we think about it.
Yeah, Origin was actually condemned by it's either Saint Optatus or Saint h I
think the Saint Optatus in his day wrote against him. So some people will
say, oh, he was never condemned in his day, Yes he was.
He was condemned by the way, not just at the Fifth Council,
but also at the sixth and seventh and he's condemned in the readings from the
Triumph of Orthodoxy the Sonauticon. So this idea that originism isn't really condemned or
universalism isn't really condemned, it is completely false. And you can also charity
and you can also read the book The Confession of Saint Semphronius of Jerusalem,
which is accepted of the Sixth Council, which has a four page condemnation of
the entire system of originism. Next question is what's the difference between absolute devine
cypicity and the divine cypicity which we do actually believe. What's the difference or
the Orthodox view of divine simplicity is that God does not have parts. God
is not acted upon, God is not created. God does not have undergo
change his essence, his nature, his attributes, his being does not change.
But we do believe that God can do different things. And that's the
notion in which a lot of Roman Calx and Thomas would disagree with. And
if you read doctor David Bradshaw's excellent book Arsaul, East and West, he'll
point out that when the Kappadocians explain divine simplicity, they explain that in that
day, in that time, the focus wasn't or all of the attributes synonymous
with the essence. It was about whether God is, whether God acts or
is acted upon, and so the idea that God has acted upon, as
if he can be changed or influenced is false. However, there is a
notion of God being able to do different things, and so Saint Gregory Palamas
says in the Dialogue with barleym the Barley might when God wrested from his works,
that showed us that he ceased the work of creation. So God does
different works. So the very text that says God ceased from his works on
the seventh Day, Saint Gary Palmers says, that proves the US and synergy
distection. I think the last question is do you think that hope on Arius
was an error when he condemned the council. That was just the question.
Yes, I think that the Council would not make a mistake by excommunicating him
for his theological error. He's not excommunicated because he had a private opinion.
He's excommunicated for a public statement of error. And the Seventh Council and the
Sonaticon restate the condemnation. So again, it's it's not a people that try
to play these games of Oh but he wasn't really condemned. Oh, it
was just his private opinion. Now that's not true. He's condemned to the
Seventh Council, and he's condemned again the sonaticon. I think I know he's
condemned again to the Seven Council. I think that the Sonoticon repeats him.
Yeah. Um, well, I think that's it. That's all the persons.
Thank you so much for joining. I'm sorry if I rambled. I
thought we were probably going for a really long time, and I didn't mean
to like talk up the whole time, so as nice to learn more.
It's fine, it wasn't half the time. I'm too stupid to talk.
So I'm glad that you saw it, honestly. Like, my only concern
going into this video is, like I watched I was showing a bunch of
Catholic videos of either Abbots being way too radical in their belief Like there's some
guy in Paris who just trying to sermon how Orthodox people are sent by the
devil, and you know, like encouraging people to fight Orthodox see with any
means possible, and just like some some crazy dude from Paris, and I
I don't want to. I don't because so many people are converting, so
they're getting upset. Yeah I think so, I think so. And then
also there's like the very politically inspired, very liberal kind of you know,
Catholic abbots that are just like I watched a guy on YouTube. He was
on like a big YouTube channel, and he was asked questions about like basic
Christian principles like vengeance and like you know, personal vengeance and stuff, and
he was explaining to the guy like, oh, yeah, you can.
You can vengeance a little bit, you know, if you if the enemy
did enough wrong, then you can you know, like compromise your Christian morals
it's fine and still be Catholic just to you know, like recruit human stuff.
So I don't want I don't want like this channel to become too rigid
to the point where we inspire people to do un Christian things, nor too
liberal at the point where we again inspire people to do un Christian things.
I just don't want people to to use this as fuel against their neighbors,
against their alloted minds, or it's just theology. It's important. I'm not
saying it's not important. I just don't want it to cause like bad feelings
hate and from God, because you know, hate, it's never He's never
from Gods. I certainly don't hate Roman Catholics, even the ones that are
really upset and come after us. I mean I don't hate them. And
I mean I've cultivated, you know, a pretty good relationship with Tim Gordon,
and we've been doing some great podcasts and uh, you know we're going
to have a future civil debate on Palamism and Tomism in person. So yeah,
I have a lot of Catholic friends still, and uh, I don't
want to be in those people's enemies. Um, but you know, we
just we just want the best for them and to come out of the delusion
and into the Orthodox Churches. And another thing is, oh sorry, oh
it's just another thing is that some like lots of Catholics don't really know about
the Orthodox Church. A lot of them don't know much about their own faith
and don't question it, so they kind of are ignorance, you know,
they don't they don't really know. And what we can do is we'll always
benefit of the death. Yeah, I think we should always be charitable,
so charitable. Like I said earlier, it does not and this is something
to before we can like sign off to those watching. We want to be
charitable with everyone and we don't want hatred. Just like strangers said. So,
I've made a point of trying to just steer clear of being like you
guys are completely absurd as individuals. You're we hate you, We don't like
you. Know, we love Catholic people. We don't believe in Catholicism,
but as people think the only reason we're wasting our time doing these videos or
trying to say we think our theology is correct because we'd like you to have
what we believe to be the formans of the trust and to give you that
opportunity. Otherwise, we would love to sit down and hang out with you
guys as individuals, but as at bottom line is, there is one true
church. It was established by Jesus Christ, and for that reason we have
to emphasize differences between the communions exactly. Yeah, we'll put otherwise. I
think that's Kyle and the Orthodox squad signing off, and that's je guy right
there. Thank you guys, We'll see you next time.