M m m m hm m hmm. All right, so we're gonna open
it up. Hopefully we'll get some good conversation today. Like I said,
I just we we just want to live here on YouTube. So I'm trying
to also get Protestants because we haven't really had many Protestant Evangelicals step over here
and discuss in a while. It's been a long time. I do want
to talk about some of the good papal books that I've been reading, the
history of the Church, not just papacy, but really Byzantium right Byzantium is
important in the history of Byzantium, obviously to the Orthodox Church. And since
I'll be going to Italy soon, we're gonna be prepping for the history of
Byzantium and Renaissance Florence. Renaissance Italy is gonna be a series of talks.
So I've got my Renaissance books over there, and I've also got my Byzantium
books right here. So we're gonna be talking about some of these big fat
Orthodox texts church history texts. Actually one of them was written by a Catholic
who became Orthodox, so we'll be talking about that just a little bit but
I'm seeing Protestants popping up everywhere talking talking, smack talking the jibber jabber Protestants.
Oh, finally we got the evidence we need to finally disprove Roman Catholicism.
And it's like no, uh, and it don't work like that.
None of this backs up Protestanism. In fact, Protestantism is worse in the
sense that Protestantism was a massive deviation from the norms of the Church for the
first thousand years, and when the Protestant revolt happened, it was actually a
revolt more extreme than what you saw in the eleventh century Gregroin reforms of the
papacy. Now, the Gregrowing reforms didn't start out talking about dogma per se,
right. I mean, there's some discussion of the issue of the phillyokuay
and the creed, but the main issue of the Gregowin reforms were actually trying
to deal with inner problems in the Latin Church at that time. And a
lot of the history texts that we've been looking at lately are covering that.
And I want to talk about a few of those quotes and then we'll open
it up. So the first book that I've been reading that is the least
good of the three books is the Louth book. I'm not a huge fan
of Andrew Louth because I sent an email to Andrew Louth many years ago and
he sent a nasty email back. And also Louth is a kind of an
ecumenist, so I'm not a huge fan of him. But he wrote one
of the books in the series of the Church in History from SVS Press,
and so he did Greek East Latin West. Not to be confused with doctor
Phillip Schard's book Greek East Latin West, which is a better book honestly,
but I mean this is an okay treatment of the Church from six eighty to
ten seventy, so basically we're getting up into the Grigorian reforms. And then
the next book after this was actually a way better book. It covers the
period after that, so the Byzantine period basically. But Louth has a good
discussion of iconoclasm and iconographic differences between East and West. And as you guys
know or may not know, you know the Orthodox view, believe it or
not, we we very much side with the papacy during that time period because,
as Louth admits in this chapter on the Francs. It was actually the
Francs that were rejecting the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and the papacy was legit at
the time. They came through and opposed the Franks. And what's interesting is
that Louth goes into a lot of the scholarship about the exchanges at that time.
And so what happened was that the West, he says, lacked a
clear icon dogma, not so much because they had the desire to reject the
Seventh Ecamenical Council, but because they had already not accepted. Well, they
accepted and then changed the position on the Trollo Quintissex Council, right, And
so Trollo Quintessex matters because it's the first council to have a statement about icons
in the Church, particularly that it forbade the image of Christ as the lamb.
The argument was that Christ as the lamb was an image fitting only to
the Old Testament period, and then since Christ is now incarnate, it no
longer makes sense to depict him as a lamb or any of the images that
are kind of restricted to the Old Testament imagery. So that was the argument
of Trollo In one of the Canons. But what's interesting is that the West
didn't go into the depth of iconographic theology that the East did. And of
course when we read John Damascus in his defensive Holy Images, and when we
read Theodore the Studite on the Holy icons, we see the depth that the
East went into it at the Council, basing all the argumentation, particularly in
St. Theodore on Christology. So the crystallogical nuances were crucial to formulating the
correct iconographic theology at the Seventh Council. Now that matters because even though Rome
didn't fully accept all of what's taught in the Seventh Council in terms of the
Canons, Rome did correctly have the right position on the Seventh Council and did
see them as what they called educational art. And so the big difference here
at this point already we're seeing a difference is that the East is arguing that
iconographic imagery in the it's crucial to the liturgy, so they have a liturgical
place, and the West at this time was emphasizing the educational aspect. It's
not to say that the West rejected the liturgical sense or usage. They just
didn't have the same theological positions of why it was connected to Christology, and
it was already connected to the energy's doctrine, and so, in other words,
if you read John of Damascus and if you read Saint Theodore the Pseudai,
you'll see that the Essen Sentergy distinction is very important for iconographic theology.
However, a big part of this is relevant to today though, is the
fact that, as Lou points out, this is pages eighty four and eighty
five due to rejecting the Frankish position. Remember the papacy at this time Leo
the Third and the pope before him rejected the Frankish iconoclass position. So remember
the Franks had a They weren't totally iconoclass, but they had they didn't accept
the Seventh Council, and they were trying to pressure the papacy to reject the
Seventh Ecumentical Council, and the papacy said, no, we will not.
And the response as to why, according to Leo the Third, was that
the icon graphic theology of the East is the correct theology. And they actually
had a list of quotes from John of Damascus in the west right which was
correct. And then the argument was that the Frankish missionaries that were sent out
from under Charlemagne. They were already beginning to use the philioqua in the creed.
And I'll read you what Louth says Leo. Their refused pressure from Charlemagne
to follow the Frankish practice of inserting the philioqua into the creed. Indeed,
had the creed been inscribed in its original form of Greek in Latin already in
two silver shields set up in Saint Peter's and so you can see the machinations
of the Franks. The Carolinians at that time was to create a cesero papal
church in the West. They wanted to control the West at that time.
Now they didn't achieve this, But what I'm getting at is that that's a
history fact that we've talked about for many, many years, many many times,
and yet again we have another scholar in terms of church history backing up
that position. And one of the key theologians at the court of the Carolinians
was Theodolf. And Theodolf argued against John of Damascus on the basis of platonic
argumentation and that the only symbology that should be used get this is Old Testament
iconography for the emperor, for CHARLOTTEAE. Why would that be the case,
Why would they want to do that, because in the history that and this
is the same in the East as well. In the Eastern Empire, iconoclasm
had a statist motivation because the emperor one of the only image to be used
was the image of him as David and as the representative of God. So
there was a status motivation on the part of the heterodox emperors that wanted to
get rid of icons, the iconic class emperors, and the same motivation of
Theodolph, the court theologian of Charlemagne. This is pages eighty eight, eighty
nine, and ninety one of Louth, And so you can see that statism
is the motivation for iconoclasm in both the court of the East and the West.
And remember that Leo the third forbade the change to the creed, forbade
the insertion of the philioquay. Now there's a couple of other places that were
okay so far. In the Louth book. Louth has a sort of brief
overview of Florence, and he admits that there were already in the seventies and
seven in the seven seventies in the West people creating a Florida jellium of Philly
Oquay proofs. And that's relevant to the debate review that David Arhon and I
just did of his recent Philly Oquay debate, and so Louth also mentions Rome
accepting initially Photius and then the two the change of position on the Eighth Council
between East and West. So there's two rival councils between East and West,
which is known as the Eighth Council for both Orthodox and for the Roman Catholics.
There's an Eastern Council and a Latin Council, and he admits that a
Rome eventually accepted the correct one and then reverse their position. Next book I
want to mention before we open it up is h the historian Sushensky, who
has his book. You know, we've covered his famous recent Philly Oquay book.
We did a whole three hour podcast on his history of the discussion of
the Phily Oqua, and of course a lot of Roman Catholics don't read it,
or they're not interested in reading it, because he's giving a historical overview
of the usage of the various passages that are the contentious passages, not just
in scripture, but in the Church fathers all the way up until today.
So his Philly Oquay book is a really excellent text. Everybody has to if
you're interested in the Philly equid. But you have to read that one.
But I guess this is new er. Let's see what this came out.
He has a book on the history of the papacy itself in its relationship to
the East. This came out, I guess in twenty seventeen, so it's
fairly new. So this is the paper say in the Orthodox the sources of
the history of the debate. So it's a lot of historical sourcing, which
is really good. Not so much about the dogma itself, but historical sources.
And remember that Sashensky started out as a Roman Catholic and then eventually he
became Orthodox after studying these topics in depth, so that's why he's another relevant
source. And he gets into a lot of the discussions, for example of
Canon six of Nicia, which is really good because he talks about a lot
of the proof texts that would be used by Roman Catholics, such as the
Canons of Sartica. Sartica didn't have anything to do with Vatican One papacy.
In fact, Sartaica itself was a council that granted the appellate right of appeals
to the papacy. It was not a papal council. So the very thing
that they'd like to use actually disproves it. And it was also a canonical
development in how appeals could happen. Bes of Rome was not the only person
that could receive appeals. In fact, the rest of the East didn't even
accept the Canons of Sartica until Trollo. And so what we see as an
evolving notion of canonical privileges is exactly why. For example, when you talk
to Roman Catholics about autocephalist churches, they get confused and they don't know what
you're talking about. They don't realize that it's the Council of Ephesus that granted
the Church of Cyprus autocephaly. And the very existence of autocephalist churches under cuts
the Vatican One Roman Catholic portrayal of history because, as is admitted in the
new Alexandrian document, right, autocephalist churches really shows that the attitude of the
Church in the first millennium was not Vatican One papacy. There's a great discussion
as well in this book of the Canons of Constantinople, which are very important
for the history of the papacy debate. Because the cans of Constantinople One,
which is the creed the council that gives the church it's dogma of the Trinity.
It's a Cappadocian dogma of the Trinity. It was not accepted at Rome.
The council has had and closed out of communion with Rome. It was
presided over by a saint that died out of a community of Rome, Saint
Malitias of Antioch. And then yet Rome a couple of centuries later retroactively accepts
Constantinople One. So all of that is completely contrary to the Vatican One revision
of history. And that's precisely why we see things like the Alexandria document,
right, which is attempting to give credence, to give place to all of
our arguments. Right. We did a whole podcast on it. Of course,
all the Roman Catholics have entirely, almost as a whole, chosen to
ignore this because, as you know, it admits ninety five percent of our
argumentation centidality and premacy in the second millennium today and today Alexandria document from June
seventh, twenty twenty three with papal approval. And it's almost like they were
listening to you know, me and Ubi or something, right, because I'm
not saying that they literally were. I'm just saying that this is actually what's
in the literature when you go to the literature of all these books. And
I'm not just talking about Catholics, I'm talking about I mean Orthodox, I'm
talking about Catholics right, when you go read Devornic, uh, you know,
when you read Devarnic on the Phosian Schism, when you read Devornic on
Byzantium and the Papacy, when you read Kongar nine hundred years together. I
mean, we consistently see in the present day uni At literature most of the
Orthodox arguments represented. And so in order to understand Francis's synod on sinidality,
right, you have to understand sinidality and premiacy as the Romancality Church has been
interacting with the Orthodox. That's the context of Francis's sinod on Sindality. Now,
the nefarious element is that people at like Fordham University. Right, they're
attempting to use this as a way to manipulate and evolve both the Romaicellitay Church
and the Orthodox Church into accepting women deacons and into accepting women priests and all
the other skittles elements that we've already covered. Right, So that's it's not
just a question of the dogmas. It's also a question of entities that want
to move both the East and the West away from any of their conservative and
traditional positions and into accepting basically feminism in skittles. But the document on sentidelity
and premiacy again is when you read it, and we did a whole podcast
on it. Go listen to it, Me and David and Sneck. We
did a two hour podcast on the Alexandria Document with papal approval. Right,
this is the successor document to the Chiaighty Document, which is mentioned in the
first paragraph there. Chady document admitted that the papacy did not exercise universal jurisdiction
in the first millennium. Now, that was a pretty strong admission, but
the Alexandria Document goes about twenty light years past that. Now, that does
not mean that I'm saying that, oh, then it's time to reunite with
Roman Catholics. No, because as we're seeing, as Tim discovered in his
livestream podcast on the Synod on Sinidality, Roman Catholics are beginning to recognize that
this movement to accept quote cenidality isn't even really about the classic notion of cinidality,
which was always priests and bishops. It wasn't a thing where laity or
women made decisions in the church. This is the next level that they want
to take it to where they're pushing this in both Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic
world to completely renovate the church. So I understand this is something that affects
both Roman Orthodoxy and as we just covered with Father John Whiteford in the podcast
that we did with him, he gave an excellent breakdown of exactly why and
where female deacons deaconesses, which again is a misuse of the terms. There
were not female deacons, right, the women who helped the diact in it,
but they were not inducted into the order of Deacons. And Father John
Whitefer made a good point about that going into the history and how they're really
doing kind of a false equivalence equivocating to then say well, and you could
see the logic right, because then they're going to say, well, if
women can be deacons, and deacons are the lowest grade of the priesthood,
they participate to a degree in the priesthood, which is why we call them
father deacons, then women can be priests because they're already part of it.
You see, see the logic of it. No, oh, and that's
a slippery slope. It's not a slippery slope. We know that will happen
because it's exactly what happened amongst the Anglicans. The Anglicans began with the exact
same thing as Father John Whyford pointed out, and then they moved to women
priests, and then they moved to women and even non binary bishops. So
it's the same. It's not a slippery slope, it's the logic of where
the position goes. Because it's not just about logic, it's also about different
power groups, geopolitical entities. Again, people out of Fordham University. These
are the entities that are pushing. That's a Jesuit university pushing both skittles and
all this stuff. In the Orthodox and Roman Catholic world, so we are
both sort of. They don't care about the PROSCT world because the PROSCT world
has already been conquered. It fell a long time ago. So they're very
interested in really demolishing Christianity in the West, or what's left of it in
any of its forms, and turning Christianity into a pseudo Christianity or a pseudo
religion that blends with all the other world religions like Francis's Abu Dhabi Faith Center.
Right, that's where they want to take things clearly anyway. But to
get back to Sishensky's History of the Papacy and Byzantium Orthodoxy book, it's good.
I really thought the treatment of a lot of these key points was done
in a very scholarly way. It's not an apologetic book, it's a very
scholarly approach. For example, he treats the issue of the emperor really bending
Vigilius to the will of the Council as a proof against this sort of Vatican
One view. Right, despite these complements and expressions of humility, Emperor Justinian
made it clear that the power of the Roman bishop must ultimately be subservient to
the imperial will, the Emperor threatened to banish Pope Agapetus. Now I'm not
saying that every one of these actions is necessarily the right thing to do,
but what happened was the rest of the Church basically wanted Pope Vigilius to sign
off on the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the Pope held off on that,
And then Virgilius, who journeyed to Constantinople, became fully aware that the majority
of the Western bishops were opposed to Justinian scheme, but the Emperor required the
Pope's approval for legitimacy, and he was determined to get it. Over the
next several months, Virgilius was rowbeaten and placed under de facto house arrest,
and at one point was dragged kicking and screaming from the altar. When the
second Council of Constantinople met in five fifty three, Virgilius refused to attend despite
the pleading from the other patriarchs, so the Emperor demanded that he'd be removed
from the diptychs for his unwillingness to ben to the judgment of the church.
When the pope finally did accept the council's decisions, the bishops of Istria,
Milan, and Achilea moved to excommunicate the Pope of Rome. So notice that.
And by the way, at this time, the Bishop of Milan was
very close in power. He didn't have all the power of the Bishop of
Rome, but the next powerful bishopric in the West after Rome was Milan.
So notice that the Bishop of Milan, the bishop of Istria and Aquileia had
absolutely no qualms excommunicating Vigilius. Now I'm not saying it's not even a question
of who's right wrong, it's that well, they clearly had the attitude that
was not Vatican one, because Vatican one and Romccalolic caunt of law still says,
no one judges the first see right, you can't have three bishops excommunicate
the pope. It doesn't work that way. However, this schism in the
West lasted for the next several decades. Now remember Romeccalolics always say you Orthodox
have schisms amongst you. Here's a multiple decade schism of three bishops rivaling in
power to the Bishop of Rome, especially the Bishop of Milan, excommunicating Pope
Vigilius over this and they excommunicate him because he quote lacked vigilance. So Vigilius
lacked vigilance, according to and so he was allowing a heresy by accepting the
Fifth Ecumenical Council. And of course, over time Rome still accepts the Fifth
Ecumenical Council was the fifth medical council ever rejected as an imp false imperial council.
No, because all of the ecumenical councils of the first seventh centuries were
called by the emperor. Now that was just the modus operandi of how the
church functioned at that time. But what it shows is that it wasn't the
Vatican one view. Also, by the way, there is a good treatment
of Dictatus Pope, which he does admit is in the papal register, and
he says the novelties of the Gregorian Reform still to this day divide. Scholars
all agree that the reforms were directed at at battering the situation the church.
So the idea was, if we completely concentrate the power in the Latin Church
in the last then we would have an independently powerful papacy that could exert direct
jurisdictional control over all of Christendom. Thus, there would be renewal in the
church. So the idea, even if it was well intentioned, was a
revolution in the ecclesiology of the church. And that's when we got Dictatus Pope.
Right here we go to Fordham Jesuit University. Remember the remember Dictatus Pope.
Roman Church is founded by God alone. The Roman Church alone can be
called universal. No sena can be called without uh ecumenical, without the pope.
Now wait a minute, remember constantin uple one was already called without the
pope, and to find the dogma of the Trinity without the pope, and
the saints and everybody at that council could close the council out of communion with
the Pope. So again, what's being declared here in Dictatus Pope in ten
seventy five is completely different than the experience of the church in the first thousand
years, you see. And this is where this is the pathway to Vatican
One. The Roman Church never aired and never will air unto eternity. Point
twenty two. Well, now, wait a minute, what about when Pope
Panorius was condemned as a heretic And a lot of the Roman Catholics, by
the way, are now admitting you know, hey, Francis has registered official
error into the Acts of the Apostolic City. Right. This is a you
know, tim is saying, hey, it's in the act act Apostolic I
say that, right, it's in the Acts of Apostolic c Francis has confirmed
the erroneous teachings, right, particularly he was talking about a communion for divorced
and remarried in the Roman Catholic system. But there's more than that. I
mean, Francis has also, you know, changed the teaching on the death
penalty, and to change these teachings, by the way. But aside from
all this, by the way, it's not even really a question of what's
entered into the magisterium. I mean, I think that strengthens the argument.
Sure, But if you stop and think about it, when POPEA Noorius was
teaching monothelitism, he's not condemned because of anything that he taught ex Cathedral.
He's condemned for teaching it in a letter that he wrote to someone else.
So in the six Econmenical Council, they saw it fit to say that just
teaching these errors from one bishop to another is enough to get you called a
heretic. So you understand that the authority behind the document has nothing to do
with whether you are teaching harisire or not. If authority behind the document was
what was necessary to be a heretic, then no one could be a heretic,
but the pope. You see how silly this argument is. Martin Luther
had no authority behind his teachings in the ninety five feces or later on in
his when he got more serious about his teachings. He was just a priest,
right, And yet Martin Luther is condemned as o heritant if you read
denzing or denzing or condemns in many many places condemned propositions. Right, So
if you believe blah blah blah, that's a condemned proposition. So you see
that it's not necessary to have ex cathedra or or magisterial power behind what you
teach. To teach error, to teach heresy, and to defect from the
faith. Anyone can defect from the faith. Any patriarch or bishop can deffect
from the faith. And so Honorius as well as other people in the church
in the history of the Church are examples. And now, according to many
of the even the mainline Roman Catholics. Francis is now an example of a
defection of the Roman sea. You can't separate the sea from the occupant.
I know that they go together. They're distinct, but they're also not separate.
So if Francis has officially entered into the registry of the acts of the
Apostolic Sea error, that just strengthens the force of the argument that he is
actually teaching error in heresy. And so therefore it is not true that the
Roman church has never aired, nor will it ever. Err, I mean
it aired when Honorius taught monothelitism and three ecumenical councils after him repeat his combination.
It's the last book in the series I want to mention that I've been
enjoying is volume four in the series, which is a follow up to Laut's
book, which is much better than Laus's book, And that's the collaboration with
Papadocus and Mayandorf Book four in the Church history series, because Papadocus and Meyandorf
understand the theology really well, so you get a much more theologically dense volume
in this one. Then you get in the other two which Laos book is
again not as theologically dense, but it's okay. Sashensky's book is a history
book, so it's not mainly focused on dogma. I mean, it does
get into the dogmas, but this one is a lot more. It's a
theologically dense treatment. And because Papadoccus, of course wrote the book about the
Palamite Synods in contrast to the Council Lines and the Council of Florence, in
this bigger, thicker treatment, he has a lot to say about the Gregorian
reforms and the forgeries of that time in the first fifty to sixty pages.
But we were having a discussion with Father Deacon the other day about the history
of the Deacon Satiricos and the synod in Byzantium that condemned the errors of Satiricos.
And the reason that this is such a fascinating period and a fascinating synod
is because it inadvertently already condemns the errors of Protestant penal substitution. And I
didn't realize because I had this book a few months ago, just didn't get
into it. But getting into it, I didn't realize that there's a whole
chapter on Satiricos and this controversy, and it's an amazing controversy because who would
have ever thought that the liturgy already rejects and condemns the Protestant penal substitution error.
It's pretty amazing. And so far this this book is the best treatment
I've seen of this specific error. Now my Endorsed Businessing Theology has two pages
on it, so it's a decent introduction. Father Deacon Anayas says that the
Palmazansky book, I think he said on page two ten or so, has
a treatment of it. I have the Pamazanski book, but it's not here
at where I'm at right now. It's at my other library, so I
can't look and see what's in that. But the Papadoccus book has again like
an entire chapter on it. So basically the idea here is and then we'll
open it up here in a minute to Q and A is that there was
a dispute that arose in Byzantium in the eleven hundreds, and it was over
the question of what's happening in the liturgy when you say, when we offer
the Eucharist, right when the priest offer is the Eucharist, what exactly is
going on there, And Satirko said, well, well, the only answer
here is that we have to say that the son is being offered to the
father, So it's an exchange between one divine person to another. Now,
I don't think this has any direct connection to Anselm, even though this is
right around the period of when Anselm is beginning to be popular and Anselm popularizes
the you know, the the infinite payment model, right where the only way
to pay off God's infinite debt, which he's infinitely offended by sin is an
infinite divine person paying off another divine person. Right. That's the Anselmian atonement
theory in basics, right. So it's not exactly like that, but it's
it's got a few parallels because one thing that Satirriko says in common with Anselm
is that, well, it's a payment of the son to the father,
right, And he says, that's really the only way to solve this issue.
And we had a decent surface level argument because he thought, if we
don't say this, then we're going to end up being a Nestorian. Right.
So he thought, if you said that the sun is offering the humanity
to the Trinity, which is the Orthodox position, as we'll see. So
Tiricos thought, well, that's dividing the person that's Nestorian. And the answer
of the Church was no. First of all, get this, this is
why it relates to penal substitution. We do not offer anything to God to
pay God because nothing created could pay off God. So that's the first point.
That's the first point that the council noted, is that there's no created
thing that pays off God. That is a rejection ahead of time of the
penal substitution theory that the son of God became man. This is the Protestant
view. I'm going to give you right here, in order to fulfill the
debt that we owe to God through sin. So Christ came to fulfill all
the good works of the law, and once he merited all those good works
of the law, he was a perfect sacrifice. And that perfect sacrifice then
placates the divine wrath against humanity. Right, So Christ doing that for us,
standing in our place as our substitute, taking the wrath of God,
then transfers to us his legal status of righteousness. So remember it's a legal
status transferral view, where because Christ merited these things. The Father can then
see us under the legal status of being righteous in Christ because Christ fulfilled all
the law and the works. It's not an actual ontological change in you that
makes you have that stance before God. That's the Protestant view. It's only
based on the legal imputational work of Christ, and so Christ as the penal
substitute then necessitates all those other points that I just made, right that make
Does that make sense so far that that's the papal view. I mean,
that's the just give me the Protestant view. And that's of course, you
know, they will go to Romans and they'll just you know, pick and
choose these quotes out of Romans, like, oh, well, you know,
uh uh, I don't know why this isn't showing the whole book of
Romans. Oh here we go Romans three. Oh well, you see,
no one is righteous, right Romans three, No one's righteous, and so
therefore Christ is our righteousness in God. They just have the assumption that Christ
as our righteousness must mean this nominalistic legal category. It's a legal fiction,
you see, and has nothing to do with the actual ontological status of those
beings being right or unrighteous. Okay, so we're doing the Protestant view here.
Now we're going to go back to the Byzantine Synod. The Byzantine Synods
said no against satiricos, this sort of proto Protestant guy. We can't say
that anything occurs in the Trinity that is only between two persons. So this
is the first point they made. Nothing triadic is diaddic. Okay, Anything
that's occurring in the Trinity, except for hypostatic properties or origin, is common
to all three. So there could never be an offering of one person to
the other, or of one person to the other that excludes the third person
or a third person. So you couldn't have something that's unique to the Son
and the Spirit that excludes the Father. You couldn't have an offering of the
Son to the Father that becludes the Holy Spirit. That would be to imbalance
the triad the council said, and they're absolutely right. Everything that occurs in
the Trinity is triadic, but uniquely manifested in the mode of the persons who
do that act. So there's one act, for example, to create the
world. The Trinity has one act to create the world, but that one
act is uniquely actualized or manifested in the three persons that have the same divine
nature and thus the same divine act. So this is called mode, not
modalism. Mode. Mode is just as important to Trinitarian theology as any of
the other types of distinctions. The mode in which nature exists is triadic.
The mode in which the energies occur or move is also triadic. St.
Basils says, the movement is from the Father, through the Son and in
the Spirit. So the council is arguing against So trikos. You cannot say
that anything occurs in the triad that is only between two persons. It must
always be triadic. However, when we say in the liturgy, and this
was the defining refutation of satiricos, it's the liturgy, the liturgy thine own,
of thine own we offer unto thee. Christ is present in the person
of the priest, offering the liturgy to the entire triad. So it is
true that there is a distinction between the human nature and the divine Son.
They are not severed or parted. The person of the Son is offering the
humanity to the Father in the Holy Spirit. So It is not, by
the way, the hypostasis of the son being offered to the Father. It
is the hypostasis of the son because he became a high priest and became incarnate,
offering the human nature to the Father in the Holy spirit. You see
that the Protestant doctrine, very similar to satiricos, is saying that the offering
is the person of the son offering up his I guess his new hypostatic reality
is incarnate, the punished divine human person to the Father. That's the Protestant
doctrine. Then that pays off the Father's anger. You see. So you
see how the Orthodox view is not that. The Orthodox view is the son
is offering up the human nature that he took on and that he healed,
and that he deified to the whole triad for the purpose of the human nature
entering into triadic life to heal. It is not a payment model. Sometimes
payment language is used, that's fine, but that's just one of the many
analogies used. Right, Paul uses legal language about being made righteous before God,
but that's not the only usage. He uses a marriage analogy, he
uses vine and vine dresser, He uses a sheep sheep fold. I mean
he uses tons of an out of the Bible, not just Paul. I
mean, I know that's in John, but I'm saying the New Testament uses
many analogies for the relationship and never reduces them to a purely legal view like
the Protestant doctrine. Does you see? And on this basic point, I
think the Roman Catholics would agree with us. Maybe there would be I mean,
not every Roman Catholic has the same view of the Atonement. There's a
lot of kind of competing theories in Roman Catholicism on the Atonement. So we
would not accept the and Selmian view, but not every Roman Catholic necessarily accepts
the end Sellian view of the Atonement. But we would say that it's perfectly
coherently triadic to think that the son is offering the humanity to the triad.
And when we say to the triad, that doesn't exclude the father offering humanity
to the son. That's true, but that just assumes that it's also in
the spirit. You see, And so when the Sonoticon actually the sonaticon condemned
satiricos, his condemnation isn't just this eleventh century Byzantine Synod. It's also entered
into the sonaticon where they explicitly read out the condemnation of satiricos. But it's
all based, as Papa Doocca says in the book on the earlier Orthodox distinctions
between nature, person, will, energy and effect. And so this proto
Protestant penal substitution view is already rejected here and already rejected in the Sonoticon.
We do not pay anything to God, nor could God be paid off by
creatures, since he created creatures and has no need of anything. So you
see how woll the Protestant idea that a creaturely offering of the human nature possessed
by the divine son as a debt payment, as a hell payment, as
a placating divine wrath payment doesn't even make sense. Why would God's wrath be
placated by punishing the human nature of Jesus. This is all just atheism factory
stuff. Also, he points out that the doctrine of the monarchia of the
Father is upheld at this synod as well, and so this period is interesting
because the development of the Byzantine early Byzantine Synods on Christology and affirming the monarchia
of the Father, and in what way the humanity of Christ is deified,
because there's actually a later synod that happens in regard to what way exactly christ
humanity is deified in these early Byzantine era. I'm saying early in the sense
of early and Byzantium eleven hundred synods. There's a question of the deification of
the human nature of Christ. And there were some groups that were saying,
oh, his humanity is now fully divine, which is a would be a
monophysite error. And so there was a resurgence of a kind of a monophysite
error that he covers on pages one n five ninety six. And then interestingly,
what comes next the rise of Bogomilism. And if you don't know what
Bogomolism is, it's one of the predecessors to Protestantism. Now, for those
that don't know, I did a very lengthy I read a gigantic, massive
tone book many years ago, and I took about one hundred pages of notes
literally Malcolm Lambert's book, and I summarized the whole book for you, called
Medieval Heresy. It's a great book, and he is a Anglican church scholar.
He's just a church historian. He's Anglican in terms of like I guess
his theological background. I'm not saying it's true because he's Anglican. Nothing in
it. It's not anti Protestant or anti people. So it has nothing.
It is not. The book is not it's just a history book. It's
a super scholarly treatment of the history of the Heretics in the Middle Ages in
the Latin West. However, he begins by talking about the Bogamels. So
if you're interested, here is my lecture on that book, Medieval Heresy by
Malcolm Lambert. It's a great book and it lines up with what Papadocus and
Mayandorf were saying here about here's the key. Bogabalism was a rejection of the
notion of hierarchy in Byzantium, and what they went for in their rejection of
hierarchy was to assume that matter could never be a channel of grace. So
there's a rejection of deification in terms of Christ. She's taking on human nature.
Remember the previous we had a previous synod saying we condemn those who say
that Christ's human nature is fully divine to the extent that it no longer has
created properties that's condemned. Then you get an opposite, extreme reaction against the
existing Byzantine Church by this Bulgarian group called the Bogamills. Boga Mill comes from
the Bulgarians, you see, the Bulgary or the Bulgari they're called. And
they said, hey, this church is corrupt. Let's go with that old
Gnostic teaching. So there's a there's a Gnostic in the chat right there,
Gnostic informant. He's saying it right here, saying I'm trying to avoid everybody.
Now, I don't have time to do everybody's debates. Now, if
you want to call in, you can call in on the chat. I
mean, we got the chat right here. Gnostic man says it right there.
See that call in. You want to call in? Here is the
Twitter call in. These people never call in though. By the way,
I've already done multiple debates with Gnostics in the past. What are you laughing
at? I'm giving you the link. You're here laughing. Here's the link,
dude, what are you talking about? So the point though about the
Boga Mills, and then later on they would influence the Cathari. Because the
Cathari sought their secret, they had their own version of Apostolic succession, the
Cathari did, and the Cathari got that succession from the Boga mills. This
Byzantine heresy, right, What is all these weird Gnostic stuff in the chat?
What the heck is going on? Bro? I don't you can laugh
at me. It doesn't bother me. I'm just trying to figure out.
If you want to come and have your conversation, you can do it.
But so the point here is that we're about to open it up. This
is the last point. The point here is that the Boga Mills prepared the
way for the Kathari, and the Cathari were very influential throughout France and Europe,
unfortunately mainly in France. They actually had a bunch of castles the Cathari
did. They got ahold of a bunch of castles. They tucked off walling
up with a bunch of castles. You basically got a Gnostic castle group.
I mean, it's it's getting crazy. They influence Proto Protestants, the Waldensians.
I'm not saying the Waldensians believed everything that the Kathar I believe they did
it. But the basic principles of bogabolism of matter is not a conduit of
grace. There is no established church or state. The church in hierarchy is
bad. Jesus was a secret Gnostic teacher giving a secret wisdom. The public
teaching of the public church isn't that secret teaching. It's this corrupt thing run
by the demiurge or y'all debate out or whatever. You can see a direct
lineal descent from Bogamil Cathari to Protestants. And I got that from Lambert.
That's his argument in the book. It's not my argument. That's his argument
as a mainline medieval historian, going into the actual texts. So Protestantism,
where does it arise from? Multiple influences, but particularly Bogamiolism and Catherism and
Waldensianism and a bunch of other weird movements in the Middle Ages. Now we
give we'll have to get the Roman Catholic's credit here, because the Roman Calics
did in these centuries oppose and reject these movements because they were run by a
bunch of crazies. Okay, yes, please, When you read about the
Cathari and the Bogga Mills. I mean they're nuts. They're completely nuts.
And I'm not saying that the Protestants are as nuts as Catharie and the Boggle
Mills. However, it seems like today they're getting that nutty Okay, So
they're basically getting to full fruition. And that's where uh Papadoccus ends this this
section on the Byzantine theological disputes of the twelfth century and then the spilling over
Ofmalism and Catharism into Europe. All right, so we're going to open it
up now. Again, I haven't read all three of those books. I've
read several chapters out of all three of those books because I'm really enjoying it.
But if you're interested in these books, I would say that best book
of the three is the Papa Docus Mayandorf book. Second book best is the
Scusinsky book, and then the Louth book is you could skip it, although
it does have some good history on the Franks and all that. All right,
so we're going to open it up to people who call in. The
way it works is you call in on Twitter spaces x now you request to
speak and I'll give you the microphone and you talk for as long as you
want. You can make whatever points you want, but remember, let's keep
to the issues. Okay, it's not about me. I don't care if
you like me or not. It doesn't matter. What's your point, what's
your argument? Where do you take issue with what's been said? And if
you disagree on the especially today, if Protestants disagree on the penal substitution and
atonement issue, I'm ready for that. Let's have that discussion today, because
that's the Protestants are all trying to jump on the fact that Francis has been
making some big, big moves and they're like, ahha, we finally it's
proving Protestantism. No, no, no, no, they ain't proven Protestantism.
I'll tell you that for dang sure. So I hope it will get
some Protestants. By the way, you can support the show by super chats.
If you want to use your superchats, you can do that in the
show description through stream labs. Stream labs is right here. By the way,
Catholics, you can also call in if you want to discuss, if
you want to ask some questions you want to bring up some points. If
you want to say that there's something that you disagree with, you can have
the floor. I'm not going to be mean to you. You can say
whatever you want. Looks like we've got a bunch of people ready to go.
I know Father Deacon wants to join me today, so I'll let him
come speak. Let's say who's first up. First up is Stephen, and
then I see you Gnostic. You want to come on and we'll go to
you here in a second. So Steven, what's up? Hello? How's
it going. I'm so sorry. I was in the replies and I was
like, get a disappointed. I was like, oh, come on,
you got to open up. We gotta be an open forum. So I
have I have just two points. My My first point is, so I'm
well, just to prefaces, I'm coming from the Catholic perspective to a Catholic,
you know, believe in all the church teaching, all that chazz.
And I'm also a gay Catholic who accepts the Church teaching. So you know,
I don't you know, I live as her in way that has chased
X y Z all that stuff. So the from you know, from the
Catholics perspective, I would say that big disagreement here would be that you know,
the origin that I would say, the origin of the Catholic understanding of
the universal animedia authority of the pope. Uh, the origin or base of
it is directly is what we would say, is directly from Christ when he
gave Peter the keys of the kingdom and gave him the powers of binding and
loosing universally just specifically to him alone, and then he also gave the power
of binding and loosing to all of the apostles together with Peter. So the
Catholic position would be that we have both the universal enemedia authority of the pope
himself by himself and the success with Peter. And then we have that same
authority when all of the apostles are in communion those who are in communion with
Peter. So that would be like a major difference there. And so when
you know you have a case of let's say a Bishop of Milan is trying
to communicate the Rome, it just wouldn't work, it would just be illegitimate.
And so that's the first pot all on before we move on to your
second point. Can I address that argument? Uh? Sure, yeah,
yeah, sure, So The first point I would say to that is,
uh, if that was the case, Let's say your argument is the case.
And I'm aware of this, this approach. I used to be a
Catholic as well, so I understand the argumentation that's used here. Fission away,
Sorry, that's all right. Don't you think that we would we would
see that manifestation in the first say, five, six, seven, eight
centuries of the church. Yeah, there's a few, there's a few texts
that I have that point to that, but yeah, you would see that
early on. Well, but what I'm saying is why would we see things
like, for example, in every one of the Ecumenical councils, there are
canons that the council puts forward that contradict Vatican One's teaching of what the papacy
is. I could say, in response to that, the the Catholic position
is not that each ecumenical council is is not going to change. You know
something that was that was said previously in another ecumenical council. Well, hold
on, huh in Vatican one. So wait a minute, don't you believe
the ecumenical councils are infallible and magisterial? Certain I would say that ecumenical councils
are magisterial, but ultimately it's subject to the authority of the Pope, like
in Vatican one when you mentioned in Vatican one, so like in Vatican one
specifically, it says that those nothing be anathema or x y z the people
go astray who seemed seek to appeal to ecumenical councils as if they are an
authority above the pope. So that's what the So that's what Vatican one teaches.
So ultimately, ultimately, if you are a Catholic and you believe in
that means that you believe in in God, the Father, full Spirit,
or whatever, and you believe the Church and the Church that the magisterium,
the head of the magisterial authority on earth is the Pope and so anything.
So as a Catholic, you would believe that. So if I were to
look back at an ecumenical council and I would think that, oh, this
ecumenical council uh contradicts what this what the Pope said later in a different ecumenical
council, then I'll be like, well, all right, too bad.
I'm just going to follow what the Pope's basically, that's that's all my position
be. Yeah, I understand. But what I'm asking is, do you
think that in these ecumenical councils at that time, like in you know,
NICEA three twenty five or all the way up to seven ecumenical councils seven eighty
seven, do you think that those people in those councils do you think they
had the mindset of Vatican One or do you think it's something that evolved.
I'm not sure. I don't think. I think a lot of things do
evolve. I mean, I'm on the leaning. I'm leaning on the fact
that the people are getting to understand a bit more about you know, the
church in relation to ecumenical councils. But just in the beginning of the church,
like we didn't have the setup of ecumenical councils until one hundred, you
know, like some centuries after. So hold on so ecumenical councils. So
you don't think ecumenical councils are absolutely necessary to the functioning of the church.
I definitely think that they have become necessary to the function of the church.
But in the beginning of the church, we have the Council of Jerusalem in
Acts fifteen. But that was like centuries before the first Ecumenical Council, Right,
So how did it? So let's say we're existing in the year three
hundred, Right, I'm a person in the year three hundred, there's no
ecamenical councils. How do I know where the right churches? Do you think
I just do I just go ask the pope? Or how does it work?
Well, one of the things you would ask the pope, you would
speak to the bishop as successor of the apostles. We have to acknowledge that
the church existed before the first Ecumenical Council. I know it existed, right,
I know it existed. But what I'm asking is, how as if
I'm a random person inquiring into Christianity at that time, how do I know
where the true church is? On your view? Because there's not been an
acumenical colt you would know through you would know through a bishop, through any
bishop who's closest to you. You would figure out, Okay, who is
the bishop, who is the successor of the apostles? And that's what the
church did you know for that time? That that's like if you look at
the makeup of the church. So let's say let's follow. So let's say
it's let's say it's three eighty one. We've had one ecumenical council at Nicea.
Let's say it's three eighty one, and I go to the second ecumenical
council and they teach the Trinitarian doctrine that the church accepts. Uh. It's
presided over by Saint Melitias, and it basically affirms the Cappadocian teaching on the
Trinity. If I go to that council and I'm there, and and and
and I see the bishops present, would that be a good way that I
might know to identify the true church? Definitely? Oh? Really? Yeah,
so they became necessary, like they became they became necessary. Okay,
but wait a minute. So there's a problem in this argument though, because
Constantinople I closed out of communion with Rome. It was presided over by a
saint who died out of communey with Rome, and Rome only after that council
a couple of centuries later, as interactively. But you just admit it.
You just admitted that I could know by being at that council, well you
could know, you could do so the papacy isn't necessary to know, no,
or you could know where the true church. You would say that the
council did not go on without being in communion with Rome like it? So
I did it so I could know the Trinity and the true Church without the
pace. If you were to have so, if you were to have,
you have the you have the first Ecumenical Council. Are you saying that the
First Ecumenical Council the Bishop of Rome was not involved in it any way?
Did I say that? No, I'm just asking, I'm just asking what
the second Well, this will address that. So did the Did the Bishop
of Rome have anything to do with that council as it was occurring when it
opened a part of the hold on? Hold on? Who called the council
the emperor and uh they sent leaguates rights? Yes, How does this What
does this have to do with my argument from the second Council? No,
what it has to do with it is to say that through all things,
the Pope was still involved with that council. There was no there was no
there. You didn't have the case. What do you think you're talking about,
Nicia, I'm talking about constant number one and three, eighty. No,
but your argument was the fact that, well, the council can can
go on without the Bishop of Rome. But you did that. That's not
what That's not what happened yesterday. Was involved. It wasn't he was.
I mean, you just said we just had legates, you know, in
Nice exactly. I'm talking about constant the number one, not nicee You.
I said three eighty one. I got confused trying to switch it. I
I got confus is I didn't try to switch it. I want to admit
that I did not try to switch it. I got confused with the cities.
Okay, but you're saying that in the council of Constantinople. Was the
pope involved in that council, No, it closed out of commune with him.
The saint that presided over it was Saint Olidos. Died out, let
me finish, died out of communion with Rome, and Rome retroactively accepted Constantinople
a couple centuries later. Well, yes, but you already admitted that.
How does that contradict what I mentioned Because you just admitted that I don't need
because I don't need the papacy to recognize the true council and to recognize the
doctor in the Trinity. No, no, that's not what I said.
I said you, I said you did say that. You asked, you
asked if ecumenical councils were necessary to know the one true faith, and I
said that they became necessary, okay, and I gave you no. No,
you said earlier that the papacy was necessary for ecumenical councils. That was
your first argument, you get on here, Yes it was that was your
first argument. No, yes, it was. No, I you said,
Vatican One teaches that ultimately ecumenical councils are the ones confirmed by the Pope.
Well, yes, exactly, thank you, right, But doesn't mean
that it has to be confirmed by the pope at the same time as the
council happened. He can retroactively acknowledge a council. So if but you already
admitted that, you already you're just you're just coping. You already you're already
admitted it is a coach. You already admitted accepting it. It's not up
to him to accept it. That means it wasn't ecumenical until he accepted it.
That's what I mean. If you're not going to shut up. I'm
gonna gonna bot you. Are you gonna let me finish it? Okay,
I'll go to the next point. Then no, no, I'm not done
with this point. I'm not done. So you don't want to stay here
because this is devastating to you. I asked you, if you don't hush,
I'm gonna boot you. I asked you if I could know the truth
Church and the true Faith at Constantinople one in three eighty one, and you
said yes, because it's an ecumenical council. Then you revised all that to
say, well, it's not an ecumenical council until the pope affirms it.
But I'm making a different point. Do you think that Constantinople one thought they
were doing an ecumenical council? I am, I'm not sure if. In
my opinion, if that is, if that's one of the ecumenical councils,
then I think that people involved, you know, whatever they particularly, why
why were they charging forward with us without Rome? I'm not sure? So
were they heretics and schismatics? I think if you, I think those who
are outside of communion with Roman, so the heritage, so the heritics,
and schismatics. I mean, would are that you just said? You just
said they are, So you think no, I said, if I think
if you are doing something outside of communion with Rome, that's them, that's
them, that's schism Mmm. So they died in schism So you think that
a schismatic council taught the Trinitarian doctrine for the whole church? I think that
if somebody did the council purposefully in schism they were they died later recognized as
true and ecumenical, then it was just ecumenical. So you get your doctrine
from a schismatic council. So you think that schismatics provides you with the trinitarian
doctrine of the church. Yeah, how is that sensible with anything in the
Roman Catholic system? Because the Pope recognizes which councils are ecumenical. That's why
it's consistent. Well, I mean, you're just stating your position, and
I'm showing you that it's a nonsense position. How it's consistent and it is.
So it's not consistent because orthodoxy doesn't come from Rome. It comes from
schismatics, is what you just admitted? Do you think the Trinity is an
important doctrine? Is the Trinity important doctrine? If the pope did not,
if the pope did not accept that, is the Trinity an important doctrine?
Yes? Okay necessary? Where did it? Where did the church derive that
doctrine? From? What council? What council did they derive the doctrine in
the Trinity? I don't know which council. I don't know which council define
that. Yeah, dishonesty because we've just been sitting here talking to now.
Dishonesty because we just went through the council. Constantinople three eighty one Gnostic informant
Gotta, I'm mute, dude, Hey going day? Can you speak up
a little? I barely hear you. You can't hear me barely? Where's
the mic settings in this thing? You know? I mean I can hear
you, just some muffled like you're in a bathroom or something. You on
the potty, argue on the pot I'm actually in front of my microphone.
Oh okay, is it better though? It sounds like it's coming through internal
mic is or do you have a real like a mic mic. I'm holding
a mic mic in my on right now. I don't. I don't know
how to change the settings on on Twitter, so I don't either. Anyway
I can, I'll turn you up as loud as I can hear you ahead.
Well, No, I just want to start off by saying I've never
actually had a time a chance to actually talk. I actually like your content,
man, I think for for for a lot of Christians don't go deep
into the ancient history. I see you getting the Heraclitis and the plates and
me and stuff. I actually like that a lot. I think we have
more in common, even though I'm not a Christian per se, I think,
I, I, uh, we have more in common on some of
the stuff that like you are exactly going up against, like that Protestant sphears
and stuff like that. But because I think they're just kind of that that's
just not the I get where you're coming from, even though I don't subscribe
to orthodox Christianity. And if you want to keep it in topic, I
would ask you, like you so you would agree that these ideas of the
triad and the monad go back to the pre Socratics, right, No,
no, no, So if I just pulled up text to show you primary
sources and you would just say it's not real. How would that work?
No, I'm just gonna argue that you're making a word concept fallacy, equivalence
fallacy by thinking that Plato's tryad has anything to do with the Christian triad.
Well, I think the Christians are adopting these models and putting Christian and sort
of applying it to Christianity. Because the math is the ma. There's no
it doesn't matter what you apply to it. The math is to say the
same regards the math is the math. I mean the Trinity. The doctor
of the Trinity is not equivalent to math. So I don't know, but
I don't buy this argument. A monad making a do odd and then a
trinity is the same math. A monad which makes a do odd and an
iad this is the diad. Yeah, a diet. Okay, But I'm
aware of what Pythagoras says. I know what I know what it's in Greek.
That's why I said that, I know what Plotona says, right,
so I understand. I understand what they're saying. And they use terminology that
sometimes overlaps. But terminology does not mean that the reference is the same.
Okay, So what do you what's so different about the Trinity. And so,
for one, the Trinity comes from the Old Testament, doesn't come from
Plato, the Old Tests and where all throughout the Old Testament, I have
entire lectures on the Trinity in the Old Testament. Interesting, I'd love to
check that out. We can revisit that. Can you give me one example.
I'm not saying a lie, I'm just curious. Yeah, I mean,
you can look at the Book of Genesis alone. The Trinity is presented
probably twenty to thirty times in the Book of Genesis. So you have Genesis
won the presentation of the logos or the Angel of God walking with Adam and
even the garden. We know that because we're told that the Father has no
form, so no one sees God at any time, according to John five.
So who was it that was walking in the garden with Adam and Eve.
It can only be the one who is the form of God, the
Son of God. So that's just one example. I'm not done. I'm
not done here. I'm not done. So you can go to Genesis twelve,
fifteen seventeen, all the interactions with Abraham. You'll find that there's this
second person that's present there interacting with Abraham, who is called the Angel of
Yahweh, the Angel of the Lord. When you get to the chapter where
Jacob wrestles, who's he wrestling with, He's wrestling with the Son of God.
All the way up to I mean, there's many more examples of the
Angel of the Lord. And the Spirit has mentioned distinctly in Genesis as well.
And so that's a proto early triadic doctrine for us. But I have,
if you're interested, I have about a three hour lecture going through the
whole of the Old Testament, all the way up through the Book of Judges.
There's a triad in I mean, the triads present in the chapter with
Sampson and Manoa is president, in the chapter with Gideon and Judges. The
triad is in many places in the Psalms of David. It's in the first
three chapters of Zechariah, It's in Ezekiel one through ten, on and on
and on. The Triads present in multiple chapters of Isaiah. I mean,
I can keep going, but it's all throughout the Old Testament, all right.
So what I'm gonna say, what the first one is, why wouldn't
any or any of those Actually, why why don't we see in the prophets
and talking about this? Why don't have they do they do? So what
do you mean? Like example again, Let'll say Ezekiel one through ten.
Ezekiel talks about the Son of Man, one like the Son of God,
who is the image of the glory of God, riding on the chariot,
and the presence of the Spirit is there with him. So all three persons,
just in the example of Ezekiel one through ten. And I use that
example because that one specifically identified hold on, it's specifically identical. It specifically
identifies the second person or the second the angel as one like the Son of
Man, one like the Son of God. So we know that that angel
is identified as the logos the second Well, okay, the logos comes from
Greek, but it doesn't the word logos comes from Greek. But when John
uses logos, it's from the Hebrew wisdom literature of Solomon. Oh, I
see what you're going with the song. Okay, that text that's interesting.
Uh, you know what, I wouldn't even I wouldn't even be opposed to
John using that because I'd say Filo, I would obviously be going that route
that's a later text, that's that's in the Hellenistic times, And I can
see why that text, that Solomon Wisdom text is uh is fowering from the
same concepts as the pre Socratics. In my opinion, well, I think
that there was exchange between probably Jews and uh, you know Hellenic culture.
We know that. I mean you mentioned Filo is a good example of that.
But the principle of what's in for example, Proverbs or Ecclesiastes or Syruc
I mean that's prior to Filo. So yeah, oh yeah, exactly,
Filo would be followered from that too. So I wouldn't I wouldn't have a
problem with that, but I'd still I still think you're still we're still we're
still in the same We're still in the same area of the pre Socratics influencing
these texts, what texts, well, the Wisdom of Solomon for the long
the pre Socratics influenced the Wisdom of Solomon. Yeah, that text is probably
written around two hundred PC, maybe at the as well. I mean that's
liberal scholarships date that, but I mean I don't I mean, do you
accept do you accept every liberal scholars dating of everything. I disagree with liberal
scholars on so many things, but not but that particular. There's I mean,
I'm pretty decent at Hebrew and Greek, and there's ways to look at
these writings and see what's how they're written, the things that are in them,
and you can met line them up with texts from that time period.
It would be like me's being like, let's up, y'all, how y'all
doing tonight, Let's go party, and like write that in the text and
you can speak saying it's from sixteen hundred. It's just not it's from it's
a modern So you're telling me, you're you're telling me you're a textual scholar.
I'm not a textual scholar. But I well, what you just said,
but what you just claim been shown. I've been shown those parts contextual
scholars, and I'm convinced of their right. Oh okay, so appeal to
authority. Wait a minute, So you've been well, I've been shown I've
been shown hold on, hold on, So so okay, well, so
if so if I just say I can I've been shown it by scholars that
say the opposite of what what do we do there? Then we pull the
textuff and look at it and then we give examples. I would do that
with you. Well, my contention will be that how we view the dating
of these texts is going to be largely dependent on what we presuppose about those
texts. So if you think that the Bible isn't inspired, for example,
right, then that that person is going to favor the scholars that say that
the Bible is full of errors and it's written late, all this kind of
stuff. Right, So it's really not ultimately because we could throw scholars back
and forth all day long, how would we let me get to the crux
of it is that the big difference isn't about the terminology or even cross pollination
between cultures. Because I could admit that there's you know, in the Hellenic
period, there's a lot of influence. You have filos definitely influenced by that
stuff, But the principles are already in Genesis and Psalms, which are prior
to anything in potentially Hellenistically influenced texts like Wisdom of Solomon. Yeah. I
don't have a problem with you. You're interpreting that way. I see what
you're doing there. But my problem with that is why don't we have more
definitive texts that come out and just say, hey, God is a trinity,
instead of us having to look at and then remap the trinity onto vague
versus. That sort of could apply. It could not well, because God
progressively revealed himself over time, and so for example, even in the Old
Testament, Isaiah would have known a lot more than Abraham, right, But
it wouldn't be we wouldn't conclude that because Abraham didn't know everything that Isaiah knew
that Abraham didn't know anything right. So likewise we wouldn't conclude that because the
Old Testament doesn't use all the terminology that's used in the Christian you know,
theological determination period of nicea or something like that, it doesn't follow from that
that they didn't teach the doctor of the Trinity. That's why when you go
to the New Testament, most of almost all of the argumentation of the New
Testament writers for the trinity or for what they're teaching of the proto trinity is
from the Old Testament. And when you read the Church Fathers, they're making
all these arguments that I make. They make the argument that the Old Testament
teaches the Trinity. I didn't get this. I didn't make this up.
I got it from them. Yeah, no, I get what you're saying
that. Yeah, that would be my contention with what you were saying.
You said you want to keep with the topic, so I'm not going to
do rail anything. Well, I mean, you can talk about whatever you
want. I mean, why should I believe gnosticism. I'm not a gnostic
in the way you think I'm. Okay, Well, in a nas and
the people who are called NASA sticks by erin as and hypologists didn't call themselves.
Why should we believe your view? Well, I don't. I don't
really want you to believe my view. I don't have a I'm not I'm
not like a going out and trying to evangelize my world. Well, I
mean, do you think your view is true? Yes, okay, I
mean presumably if you believe it, you think it's true. Right, Well,
I think it's true to what I know and what my what I what
I have knowledge of right now? I don't have it. I'm not dogmatic.
I will if I get presented with evidence that is convincing, I change.
But you believe that like the view I have is not true so,
like, on what what basis would you say that I should believe gnoscissism or
do you not think that people should be Maybe you think that they that you
shouldn't convert people. I don't know. I actually don't. I don't have
a problem with it, with your theology or what you believe in. I
actually respect that you are doing a lot of the work and actually looking deeper
into these things and not just using complete fallacious Uh. I want it to
be true. So it is like inspiring philosophy does. But if we have
I'd almost to say, like what I disagree with you about, it would
be that Jesus being God and they're being and applying in my in my opinion,
but I think it's that the Bagaria triads onto Jesus and Yahweh and making
a triunity there. Okay, hold on there. So do you think the
Old Testament has any of those Messianic prophecies where this Angel of the Lord is
present being called the face of Yahweh, being called the messenger of the Covenant?
I mean, does that does that exist or not? Yes? And
you also having job, We've got the sons of God all arranged themselves in
front of in front of Yahweh. Okay, are the sons of God called
they're called the sons about They're called those sons about Bennie Levine and Hebrews.
Are they called Yahweh? No? Okay, but the Angel of the Lord
is called Yahweh. Which text you're talking about? The text where Yahweh turns
his face to Gideon. Okay? Yeah, so, and according to you
know, traditional Judaism, it would be that's that's Yahweh presenting himself. Okay.
Nobody sees Yahweh at any time in traditional Judaism. It used to be.
It used to be that way. Yahweh has no form, So what
do you mean Yahweh doesn't have a film after they start getting influenced by the
Presocratics. Before that, Yahweh had a form, and he also had idols
of him. You also images of him. He looked like Zeus. No,
I mean Moses says that you saw no form. Moses didn't see his
face, he saw the back of him. Yeah, that's the Angel of
the Lord. Jesus says that it was him talking to Moses. But I'm
just trying to say that you're wrong about what the Old Testament it self teaches,
it doesn't teach that at one time Yahweh had idols. Where are you
getting that? No? There is yet No I would disagree with you in
that, Where are you getting that? No? I didn't say the Old
Testament. I'm talking about when I look at the evidence of early Judy or
early Israelite religion, of worship of Yahweh in the Sinai region and in Jerusalem.
Okay, well, but I'm talking about the text and what they teach
right so in and those to me that when he comes in those forms it's
an angel. It doesn't necessarily means Jesus. Okay, who is the Angel
the Lord throughout those passages? You don't think he's identified as thee what a
lot of angels? You understand that the word angel doesn't always mean a created
being. Well, angels Greek for messenger, the son of God. It
means son of God. Some of God is you say son of God and
to a Jewish person it just means angel. It's the same. It's the
same thing. So what does that have to do with whether our teaching is
or what I'm saying? And how do I know it's necessarily Jesus about saying
that it's Jesus. So your sight, because a Jew today doesn't believe that
that's your story. I'm not talking to talk about myself. I'm saying like
in Hebrew benyng he means son of God and Greek angel angelos means it means
angel. Yeah, But that's why I'm trying to tell you that the Angel
of the Lord is referred to as God as seeing God, as seeing Yahweh
in the texts. Yeah, and that that could be any angel an angel.
No, not any angel. No, not any angel can be called
Yahweh. That would be idolatry. Well, it's if it's a messenger of
Yahweh, it would be called that. It's not his name is Yahweh.
I God says in Exodus three and in twenty three that he put his name
in the Angel of the Lord that went before them into Palestine. Right,
God's name cannot be shared with creatures, so it's not a creator being,
So why can he be shared with Jesus? Then the Son of God is
not a creature. He's the second person God is. That's what I mean,
Like, that's my problem. I'm not trying to be a dick.
I'm just saying. The problem is, why would it have to be You're
not even aware of what the what our view is, and so you're like,
I didn't even know what You didn't even know that we argue the Trinity
from the Old Testament first of all, so you weren't aware of that.
So what I'm trying to explain to you is that the Trinity is already there
in the Old It's throughout all of these passages. Jesus is go backwards and
map it's not. It's not going backwards. I'm explaining from those texts why
this is the case. Well, why do we do this? Why don't
I look at send me your video where you show you all your examples of
the Old Testament trinity and we can talk about it. How about that?
Well, I mean in Zacharia one, two and three, you have the
Father, you have the Angel of the Lord standing there ministering at the altar,
and then you have the presence of the Holy Spirit. That's one example
of many. How would you exitute that? I would exitet that exactly how
it says, there's an Angel of the Lord and he's ministering in front of
Zeruba bell and the High priest josh Interesting, you know what is what he's
called there? Yes, sua yes, yeah? Is that Jesus. That's
not Jesus. No, it's the high priest. That's a common name.
Do you know what a type? Yeah, the common note? Yes,
you is not a common name for high priests. No it is. No,
it's not. It's a name of a person. It's Joshua in the
Old Testament. It's not a common name for high priests. Okay, I'm
aware of that, but i'm not. That doesn't make it a common name.
It's a specific name for you. If you're not. If you're going
to keep interrupting me, then what's the point of having this interaction. I'm
just saying, have you read Isaiah? Yes? Okay? How many chapters
are there where they taught where it talks about the messenger of Yahweh and the
Holy Spirit? How many chapters total are there any? So you're not even
aware of these texts, but you know that ext of Jesus of these how
many chapters with the Holy Spirit it you're not even aware of these texts,
But you're an expert on these texts. When I say I was an expert
on these texts. I told you. You said at the beginning of this
talk that you know Hebrew and Greek, and you knew how to explain all
these texts. I don't. I do know some Hebrew and some Greed pretty
good at it. I'm not going to call myself an expert at Okay,
So is is this mentioned anywhere in Isaiah? It's one mention I keep asking
you. That is one mention what I just asked you about. Stop playing
games. They don't know what you said. The Father, the messenger of
Yahweh, and the Spirit does that? Is that in Isaiah? Do those
things come up? It does? Okay? Who is that or what is
that? That's an angel? An angel of the reason why you understand that
I'm talking you're an idiot I'm talking about shut off, just shut up.
I'm talking about Messianic prophecies because you won't stop and listen what I'm arguing.
I'm trying to tell you they're Messianic prophecies. You understand that the prophecies there.
You know, the original context of Isaiah is both the people of Israel.
So as the selfing servant, it's not about the people of Israel,
It's about both the people. It's about both the people of Israel. Are
you just shut up and listen if you're just going to keep interrupting, I
know that it's about the collective people. It's also about the Messiah. So
everything you argue is is. Everything you're arguing is false either ores it's like
either this or that. Do you understand that typology can be both? And
I agree that it could be both and a candy both. Right, right,
final with that as long as you have except that leading up to three
is about the people being taken over. You understand that I'm not talking about
Isaiah fifty three Isaiah forty two, which is a Messianic prophecy. Just sorry,
all right, We're done. You won't stop interrupting. Goodbye, Next
up, t JA. So the point was that the Jews believe in Messianic
prophecies in terms of these texts. Now he says, oh, they're not
actually Messianic prophecies, that's all post hawk or whatever. Okay, So let's
look at what I'm talking about. Since he wouldn't shut up, So you
notice that it's always based on these word concept fallacies. Right, The news
essmate uses the word logos that must mean pre socratic, esoteric, mystical,
gibber, jabber. It cannot mean what we mean, right, so it
means anything but what we mean. What is Isaiah forty two, say the
servant of the Lord. Behold my servant, my elect one, in whom
my soul delights. I have put my Holy Spirit upon him. He will
bring justice to the gentiles. He will bring forth, he will cry out,
he will not cry out and raise his voice Messianic prophecy. I wonder
who the elect one of Israel is, his servant that has the Holy Spirit
upon him. When he comes, the gentiles will convert. That's exactly what
happened when Jesus came. Do you think that's the only text in Isaiah which
refers to the triad I have all the Triadic texts listed. Let's look at
Isaiah forty four. And I asked him a simple question. And then he's
like, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know what you're
talking about. I don't know what you're talking about. Now he started out
with, oh, I know he bring Greek, like he's a textual scholar.
Isaiah forty four. Here, now, my servant, Jacob upon Israel,
whom I've chosen. Now, is that the nation of Israel? Yes?
But who al so is the nation of Israel collectively represented in the servant?
Upon whom is his spirit? And who is the Messiah? The archetype
of Israel is Jesus, Thus says the Lord who formed you in the womb.
What my Jacob, my servant, jesture on. I'm chosen. I
will pour water. I will pour my spirit on your descendants and upon your
blessing, blessing upon your offspring, Thus says the Lord the Redeemer. I
am the first and the last. What's that alpha and omega? Alpha Omega?
Who's the alpha in Omega? Yeah? Aamy, Yeah, I'm not
done though. Hold on, oh Jesus, Isaiah forty eight. Now you're
saying this is just a sampling. This guy's like, where's the Trinity in
the Old Testament that doesn't exist? This is a sampling, Isaiah forty eight
point fifteen. Come now and hear me, hear this, Come near to
me and hear this. I've not spoken in secret from the beginning, from
the time that I was there. Now the Lord God and his Spirit have
sent me. The Lord God and his Spirit have sent me, so here
he is in the chat. Yes, Jacob means Jesus. Correct. You
would know this if you had at all learned basic Messianic prophets, or just
get out here, dude, I don't want to interact with you. Triaddic.
The Lord God and his Spirit have sent me. This is Jesus speaking,
the Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. That's Jesus. All of
these are Messianic prophecies. Now the Jews admit they're They just don't think it's
Jesus. But of course when Jesus came, what happened the Gentiles convert,
which is what dozens of passages say will happen when the Messiah comes in the
Old Testament, dozens of psalms, dozens of passages in Isaiah. You don't
just take one passage, you take the whole totality of the passages to understand
why this is a prediction of the Messiah. We'll look at Joe. I'm
gonna just throw in a bunch of passages. I'm just gonna shockgun quotes Isaiah
phil is chloral And by the way, that's a grammatical form of the plural
number. Right. Let us. Obviously we know the let us make man
in our image. And the Lord said, behold, Adam is to become
as one of us. You have all the Angel of the Lord, citations
in which they worship, called the worship Angel. Yeah, but he just
keeps equivocating and saying angel means a created messenger, which was like, I
understand, I'm explaining to you, it's not a created messenger when it's called
Yahweh. Yahweh cannot give his name to creatures, Okay, And why would
you worship a created messenger? Exactly? In fact, when anybody worships an
angel, they're forbidden from doing it. Listen, o coast lands, take
heed people's from Afar. This is Gentiles. The Lord has called me from
the womb Jesus, from the matrick of my mother. He may mention of
my name. He has made my mouth like a sharp sword, as revelation
one says about Christ. In the shadow of his hand. He hid me
like a paula shaft in his quiver. He hid me. He said,
you are my servant, oh, Israel. Christ is the ultimate servant Israel,
because he is Israel, in whom he will be glorified. How do
I know that this is talking about Jesus, the Lord who formed me,
and is him to be a servant to bring back Jacob, to make sure
Israel has gathered to him, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and
to restore This is the Father. I will give you this messenger here as
a light to the gentiles, that you should be salvation to the ends of
the earth. Thus says the Lord to the Redeemer of Israel, the Holy
One, to him who man despises, Christ, the one despised of men,
the servant of rulers. Kings will see and arise, Princes will worship
what happened when Jesus came, and then gentile nations started. What's been happening
for two thousand years. Kings and nations, princes have worshiped the Holy One
of Israel. And these are just a few examples. Do you understand.
I can keep going throughout the rest of the chapters of Isaiah. I don't
just need Isaiah fifty three. In fact, I don't even go to it
because everybody just tries to cope about it, even though it's totally obvious.
I can go to Isaiah sixty one. Can I speak in a second,
when I'm done addressing Messianic prophecy. This is just in Isaiah. I understand
the spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed anointed
me to preach to the poor. I wonder if that's about Jesus. Maybe
maybe the spirit of God is upon me. Jesus speaking, the spirit of
the Father is upon me. That's a triad in countless passages of the Old
Testament. This socidy, this socided and Luke four of Jesus fulfilling this passage.
And do you understand again, Jews believe there's a messianic passage prophecy.
They just don't think it's about Jesus. Numbers also has the priestly blessing in
the triatic formula, the Lord bless me, the Lord make his face to
shine upon me, the Lord lift up his counsel. In some pomny,
Isaiah has the triple form Holy Holy, Holy doxology. The serf from holy,
Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts. Did try the triads all
through the Old Testament. It's amazing. No, you see, it's just
Plato Pythagoras's triad that's mystically truly present in the Old Testament. They look at
this, surely they are my people, children who will not lie. So
he became their savior who did he was afflicted. The Angel of his presence
saved them. That's Jesus the Savior, the Angel of his presence. But
they rebelled against his holy spirit. Look at that, the entire triad right
there in Isaiah sixty three eight to ten. I mean, you can't read
the Book of Isaiah unless you just ignore all of this right and go ahead.
So we had another person that wants to chat, what's up? Man?
What's up? You're right, yeah, I know. My discussion is
about funny. It's not relation to what you're discussing right now in religion or
philosophy. But it's more to do with politics. Is what is your opinion
on national socialism? In his terms? Not the topic? Uh, if
a man, what's up? If a man? What's up? Got un
mused? How you doing? Sorry? So you you I've been following the
conversation for a while. I don't know if you want to stay on the
messy topics, but I wanted to ask something about cassism and also that see,
we don't have to talk about mess prophes. So two things. It's
it's two questions, but I think that they're brief enough that you would be
able to answer them. Like, So, the first one is, so
an argument that's obviously made by a lot of Roman Catholics is appealing to certain
acts. I have a certain interpretation of what it said in certain acts of
certain ecumenical councils about the pope, particularly the sixth and the seventh Council,
relating to like Agatho's letter or stuff like that. So my my first question
is, like, what is your take on like what's like the orthodox tink
on that? And then the second question is is is do you buy Craig
Trulia's argument that Augustine just didn't believe the filly okay and stuff like that.
I don't know what your take is on that. Now I do not agree
with that argument, and I've argued with him about it, Okay. So
on the so, yeah, so if you read about if you read the
book The Paper Lives In by Denny, he has a great explanation of how
this actually does pre papalism. Because number one, the sixth Ecumenical Council is
condemning a pope. So Clearly, the sixth Ecumenical Council doesn't teach the indefectibility
of the Roman see because Honori is defected. Secondly, if you look at
the way the Council treated Agatho's letter, they examined the letter to see if
it was consistent with previous teaching, just like Chalcidon examined the letter to see
if it was of Leo to see if it was consistent with Saint Cyril.
So Cyril is the pinnacle of Orthodoxy at Chalcedon, not Leo, and likewise,
the previous teaching of the church at the sixth Secondmenical Council is the pinnacle
of Orthodoxy, not the de facto letter of Agatho. So they spent I
think Denny says, a week something like that, examining to see if Agatho's
teaching was orthodox. Furthermore, the easy way to refute this is to point
to latter in six forty nine, because if the attitude of this council was
papal, then they would have not even investigated the teaching of Agatho, nor
would they have even needed to have the sixth Ecumenical Council, which was an
imperial Council. All they would have had to do was to go to the
Teaching of six forty nine lateran which was a Roman Catholic synod held under Pope
Martin, the first attended by Saint Maximus Confessor, by the way, and
it had already condemned monothelitism. So if later in six forty nine was a
papal approved council already condemning monothelitism, all they would have had to do at
the six Ecumenical Council was say, hey, Pope Martin has already spoken case
closed. What do they always say, Rome has spoken cases closed? Wait
a minute later in six forty nine already spoke case closed. Yet this doesn't
solve the issue. They have an entirely different Ecumenical Council in six eighty six
the emperor and condemn a pope. So the fact that Aga, though says
that Rome is unsolid and is always taught Orthodoxy, we don't have that big
of a deal about that, because Rome was pretty much Orthodox throughout this period
except for Honorius. Yeah, so I've read a follow up question. I
just thank you for that summary. I think I heard Sarah from Hamilton make
the same point about Laddering six forty nine, which was that's actually a really
big point I think something. And by the way, latter in six forty
nine is not counted among Roman Catholic ecumenical councils, even though according to their
line of origmentation it should be. Ms A really good point. Is that
something I've not heard brought up by most Orthodox or Catholics in the on these
issues. So I'm definitely gonna have to read Denny's book on that question is
what was it? What was it? Well? Hold on, but hold
on before we move on to your next question, though, I mean,
do you do you would you concede that if the Acumenical Council is condemning Honorius
for merely writing a letter advocating monothelitism, I mean, how does that square
with the Vatican One doctrine of the papacy No one judges the first see no
council is above the pope. Yeah. So for context, just before I
say the next thing, I am a Protestant just thinking to you on these
issues. I actually talked to you about baptism a long time ago, and
I remember if he meant you, I remember, yeah. But yeah,
so I think that is something that as a point I don't think I've ever
I think you probably have made this point on your streams at this at some
point. I just maybe just missed it, because this is one of those
points that I haven't really thought of, Like, yeah, like they're condemning
him not because of well he went up in front of the whole church and
said blah blah blah blah blah, but he wrote a letter and they were
like, no, the letters. Yeah, but what I'm saying is that
the letter was enough to get him condemned. So yeah, So that shows
that in terms of like how Tradcats are argue this stuff, Roman Catholics argue
it. It doesn't require the pope making something dogma for him to be a
heretic or heterodox. Do that? Do you understand why that is? Because
if if the status of authority and infallibility or magisterial status was what was necessary
to make Francis or whoever a potential heretic, nobody could be a heretic but
the pope, because nobody can do that but the pope. Yeah, was
Martin Luther? Was Martin Luther binding anybody to his justification doctrine? Does he
have the power to do that in the Romancalla Church. No, and yet
he's a heretic. Why because because authority has nothing to do with whether your
hatick or not. Yeah, a very fair point, would you so?
Okay, So, relating to the question I made about Augustine, right for
you, for you guys, you basically say you always so first, you
would basically say that Craig's reading on that is just straight up wrong. Yes.
I found that interesting that, like, there's a lot of Orthodox God
would point me to what Craig said about it. Right, Well, Craig
thinks that an Orthodox person for whatever reason, I don't know if he still
thinks this, but at one time he thought that you have to you can't
have theological mistakes, so you have. So basically he has this thing that
he thinks he has to make everybody have the same theology. And I think
that's just false. It's wrong. It's it's not it's somebody said, I
actually have seen this. Now, this is this may be deleted, this
may be a long time ago. On a thread somewhere, I saw him
sort of try to defend the concept that the fathers are infallible at one point.
Yeah, I'm saying he has argued that type of a thing. I
don't know if he still holds that, so you know, yeah, that's
really like so for you guys, you guys would say like, Okay,
Augustine was wrong, but it doesn't really matter to his sainthood on that right,
right. Yeah. I think multiple church fathers and saints have made errors,
and I think that honesty requires that. I mean, Photius admits this
and the mysticogy that that they made errors, So it will basically mean like
they made errors. But what's really important is what the church is affirming,
like through its councils. So we're not going to yeah, like if something
is a disputed question, I mean there's going to be periods of flexibility and
open issue, right, There's going to be periods of debate. So you
know, can gregor Nissa get it wrong when it comes to a pocket of
stasis? Sure? So what I mean that makes a lot of sense.
That makes way more sense than what the other orthodox that I've heard, like
truly say is because that is the thing, because I would look at the
Chutansky's book on the phil okay, and he's like, yeah, I'll got
I think it's like really early in the book, he's like, yeah,
Augustine teaches the phili okuay, and that's a scholar, right, And I
was like, well, doesn't work with what any of these other guys are
saying whatsoever. So the fact that you're able to explain like that, I
appreciate that because it definitely it causes less problems to have that sort of perspective.
Well, I mean, just let's just take the issue of differing lists
of church fathers on different canons of scripture. So many of them got it
wrong in terms of what in the Orthodox Church would be the normative canon.
So oh, I guess they're all heretics now right. I mean, this
is the easiest way to refute this kind of silly view that the church fathers
are individually infallible on theology. I mean, Jerome has a different canon than
John Damascus, Okay, and they're both saints. Because if something's an open
question, we don't automatically condemn people because they got something wrong. But there's
this weird idea that if you are deified, that somehow you can't make a
theological mistake. I just think that's silly. I appreciate that I do appreciate
that that does actually make a lot of things make more sense in Okay,
do you have any other issues or questions or topics? What do you want
to get to? Oh? Okay, so on the on the what do
y'alls take on succession within churches that are not intervenient with the Eastern Orthodox?
Is there just no grace there? Or you was taking an agnostic view like
there might be, but we cannot be sure whatsoever, So you should be
e O or what it definitely isn't. I just want to know your perspective.
I'm not really like debating that. Yeah, I mean, we don't
have access to what grace God is granted to individuals and other communions. The
judgments that we make are based on the public confessions of those groups, So
the public confession of the Baptist or the whoever, Pentecostals or whatever, and
even groups that have a kind of a succession. Ultimately, if you've lost
the Orthodox faith, the church might judge the case that you have the rituals
done correctly, but it doesn't really matter if you you know, it's abslut
secession that I'm not a mechanical thing where you're automatically Apostolic, even if you,
you know, have lost the Orthodox faith. And that's something St.
Anthonasius says that about the heretics and schismatics, that even if they have succession,
if they've lost the faith, what does that really get you? Now,
it might get you something in the sense that if the church receives you
and judges that case to be a situation where they don't have to be reordained,
and that economia can accept that they were vested or whatever. Then that's
the decision of the local synods and the economy of the bishop. But that's
a different issue from do we think that anybody has If there was no grace
for people in other churches or groups, then they would never be able to
come to Orthodox. So you can only come through grace. But we don't
make judgments on people's individual salvation because what Paul says, what do we have
to do with judging those that are without We don't have access to that information.
So our job is to just tell them to become Orthodox. I appreciate
that definitely. Last question, just so the quote from as about like if
they have it's one of the festal letters where he's talking about them. I've
cided it a bunch of discord. It's one of the Festal letters where he's
talking about them not having they've lost the Eucharist. It's one of the it's
the Festal letter about Easter. Okay, I forget which Festal letter it is.
It's about Easter. But yeah, all right, I appreciate that,
man, have a nice one. I might have it. Let me see.
It might be twenty nine. Let me see, let me let me
see. I'm looking. Hold on, yeah, no, it's not twenty
nine. Mmm. So yeah, I haven't marked in my cheft set at
home. I don't have the cheft set with me. Yeah, it's it's
cool, man, I'll look for it. Man, and I appreciate at
least the reference so that I can find what. We'll find it somewhere.
Let me see if I can find it real quick, but searching Festal letter
or Easter. Let's see. Maybe what isn't the thirty nine I'm not sure.
Let me say, no, thirty nine is the his list of the
canon. Uh, let me see if maybe it's a letter too. Let
me see. I said this to Snack not too long ago, and now
I can't remember which one it is. Kay. Uh, let me see
if I can search. I might be able to search discord real quick.
Uh, because I think it's in the mad chat. Let me see Festal.
H. Well, that's father Deacons citing Festal letters one to seven.
So it might be one of the first seven. Let's see. Oh,
it might be the first one on fasting trumpets and feasts. I'm pretty sure
it's one of the first seven. I think that's right. But there's a
certain section where he talks about heretics losing the feast and losing the because they
don't have the faith. So it's like, you can have rituals all day
long, but if you've lost the faith, like the rituals don't do you
any good. Because it's the same reason why we reject the Roman Catholic notion
that like, if a priest has ordained a priest, and the Roman Catholic
view, he can forever confect the sacrament no matter what, even if he
becomes a Satanist the very day. That's their view, right, he can
always confect the Eucharist. We would say, no, once he's apostatized,
that none of that counts. It doesn't matter anymore. Yeah, anyway,
it's just I think it's one of the first seven. It's just I haven't
thought about this in a long time. So yeah, actually I have a
just a really quick backup, but for short. So a lot of times,
okay, so a lot of times Catholics make a specific argument about the
canon to Protestants, about how they don't have an infallible churches to find the
cannon, and just skipping over most of those debates, I think a lot
of times Orthodox make the same argument, and the Protestants have contested that they
never infallibly define the canon. But it seems I'm just asking for a confirmation.
It seems that at the Council of Trullo they did affirm that. Do
you guys act that as a part of the sixth council? Is that correct?
Well, Trollo, I think so Trelo affirms the cannon from Carthage,
the Canon of Scripture from Carthage. Trollo is then I believe some people argue
it's accepted at the sixth, but then it's officially at the seventh. So
basically Trello slash six seven affirm it correct. Okay, So then that argument
against the Orthodox would not be valid, which which argument. The argument is,
well, you guys ever probably define the canons. You guys can just
you know, rejected due to our canonicals tomorrow as scripture or whatever. No,
I mean the seventh, the seventh that Coumentical Council affirms the canons of
Trollo. Yeah, okay, And then that that that basically solves that because
I know the other Paul made that argument once his response to Kyle that basically
did the Orthodox nam frilo will be defined it? Oh? I found that
it's Letter five of Athanasius, because if you go down, he says that
those who have rendered the garment of the church, and they he says,
they sacrifice the rights outside of the church, and he says, basically doesn't
do anything for him. If I remember, I think, I think this
is it. I think I think this is it. Here letters section four
of that letter. Let's see. Brother. He then think the accomplishment of
the feast is in the abundance of food. Jews think that it's in the
types and the shadows. Schismatics keep the feasts in separate places with vain imaginations.
But let us not brethren, let but let us brethren be superior to
even keeping the feast with sincerity. To the Jews who no longer received types
and shadows, but not like Jews receiving types, and no longer receiving types
and shadows, having been illumined with the light of the glorious illumined light,
which, by the way, has not created grace looking upon the sun of
righteousness. To the schismatics not renting the code of Christ, but in one
house in the Catholic Church, let us eat the passover. I think I'm
not sure if that's it. It sounds like a little bit, but maybe
there might be further down because he basically there's a section where he talks about
the schismatics do rituals, but it doesn't do them any good. Let me
see hold on one, sorcy, let me try something else. I could
see the screenshot that I sent the snack. I just don't remember which one
of these it is. Let me think, let me just search out the
enacious that my work. Oh, here we go. I found it.
It's a letter seven. That's it. So I'm off it's a letter Uh,
that's weird. Why is that on here? Yeah? So letter seven?
That's weird because it's on New Advent here. That's weird. Why is
it? I see it? Is it the excuse excusmatics, since they are
excluded from glorifying God with the same cannot properly even continue observing it? But
why is that? Like it's I don't see it on the list here?
What am I looking at the wrong person? Letter seven like it's no longer
listed on here. It goes from five to ten on New Advent. But
when I pull up New Advent from the Lincoln Discord, it shows letter seven.
That's really weird. See there's letter seven, but if you look on
the screen, letter seven is gone. It's really bizarre. So something so
it's like it's hidden now. So if you go to New Advent Letters of
Saint Athenasius, it goes from five to ten. But you can still pull
up the link to letter seven. Oh shoot, yeah, I wasn't on
the YouTube, just on the website. I'm on up spaces, but I
just checked and you're right, it's actually really weird. Yeah, now let
me put it in the chat for everybody, so you can go to you
can you can see the letter for yourself. I'm not making it up.
It's still there. It's just it's just hidden for whatever. That's crazy.
So there in the chat is the link to letter seven to show you I'm
not making it up. And it says that yeah, centers and those aliens
to the church, heretics and schismatics, since they're excluded from glorifying God,
cannot observe the feasts. So in Athenasius. In Athenasius is mind right his
sacramentology. By the way, that's not donatism, because donatism is a different
view from what Athanasius is saying. Donatism says any sin excludes you from from
grace and from from sacramental grace. Right, So if a priest is having
a dirty thought when he baptizes you, you were never baptized, right,
that's donatism. Athanasius' view is not donatism. He's saying that if you lose
the faith, then you no longer have the powers of right, sacramental powers
or jurisdiction or whatever. But in the Roman Catholic system they developed in a
different direction with the strict view of matter, form and intention that comes about
in the early Middle Ages. So we didn't the Orthodoxy has never developed that
matter form and intention specificity. That's why they believe that that uh, a
muslim and an atheist can baptize you. That's in that's Roman Cally view.
Yeah, and Athanasians would never he would think that's crazy. Yeah, and
so you would say, would you also say when it comes to that topic,
this is kind of like it's a related to this, but basically like
that, like a Baptistic view where the sacrament is only valid based on your
internal disposition is like a reverse Donetism where it's like it's not that person could
affecting it, but the person receiving it or something like that. Well,
I mean Baptists don't believe the interior disposition has anything to do with the sacramento
right itself. That is true as well. I mean I just don't believe
in baptism or regeneration, so it doesn't baptism just a sign of an inward
transformation. Yeah, yeah, it's I grew up like I've grown up evangelical
and that's one of the like the baptism is probably the first big red pill
on church history, to be honest, because it's like like and like I'm
I'm like like just what everybody knows. I'm personally cool, like with Gavin,
like we follow each other, we talk. But when I watch this
video trying to justify like a bapt like trying to argue against bath leone generation,
trying to use the Church Fathers to do that, Like it's like my
brain just like that's totally dishonest. Every all the Church Fathers takes baptism regeneration.
Everybody knows that. I mean, that's just dishonest. Yeah, And
so so when it's also a wild how your your theology and all these things
is really related, Like it's not even goal your Christology and trinitarianism has nothing
to do with anything else exactly. Yeah, well you got the that's the
big point right there, right, I mean, if the paradigm of the
sacraments is the same as the paradigm of Christology, it's it's it's exactly how
it transfers over. Yeah. Yeah, and it's like it's like there,
it's kind of like how the in the Reformation, the Reform tradition goes even
far further than the Lutherans, and then the Evangelicals develop out of the Reform
tradition and essentially they start separating, like the Christology and the and the do
the Trinity for everything else. And that's one thing I've always appreciated for like
the last four years that I've known about Orthodoxy and like so very slowly learning
about it, is that, like on y'all's perspective, like the Trinity and
Christology and is actually central to absolutely everything, every single issue. And that's
right, that's the paradigm, different, right, very different. Yeah,
the paradigm. You're not going to have a doctrine of ecclesiology that contradicts Christology.
You're not going to have a sacramentology that contradicts Christology. So in Christology,
the divine person of the Sun joins himself to matter to created things,
created nature. Therefore he deifies the created nature. Therefore, in the sacraments,
you can't divorce the grace present of the sacrament from the celebration of the
rite. They go together, and in the New Testament they go together.
That's why Paul calls it the washing of the labor of regeneration. And every
president has to say, well, it's not baptism, it's it's anything above
baptism. No, it is, it's baptism. That's why in Acts two
thirty eight two thirty nine be repenting to be baptized for the remission of your
sins. That's water baptism, which is what they do in that very chapter.
Yeah, and that's like you you're making sense because it's like it's not
separate because baptism incorporates you into Christ's body, which is connected to him because
he united himself to human nature, into all these things that are connected,
rather than being separate. Right, Yeah, good questions. Thanks if you
man appreciate that. Uh yeah, We're gonna move on to the next person.
By the way, here is I finally found it. It's letter seven,
which is somehow now deleted from the public page of New Advent. Very
suspicious. I have no idea why they would do that. Why would New
Advent? You can see the link is still there. We're at it right
here. Look letter seven. Look at that centers all alien from the Catholic
Church. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from glorifying God, and thus they cannot
be properly observers of the feasts. So in Athanasius's mind, if you're outside
the church, if you're a heretic or schismatic, doing all the rituals all
day long is not going to do you any good if you've lost the faith.
So journer, what's up? Hello, Yes, sir, Thanks Jay
for taking the time always for doing that. Hey. Hey, the Lord
blesses you and your wife. I really appreciate that. I'm currently a Protestant
and I'm still kind of working through different things. And one of the things
that I've been the last couple of years and watching you on and related to
PSA, like you had mentioned the subst tournament. I fully believe and understand
what you're talking about. How it's historianism. I'm curious how what's the like
the Church Fathers or the Orthodox view of like the word propitiation, you know,
Protestants is trying to use like especially like first John two two and like
Romans three twenty five, Like what is that view because you know, they
always say that words specifically is about wrath and all this kind of stuff.
So I'm kind of curious on that. Yeah, I think that when I
was saying earlier that the the payment is not offered to God to pay him
off, that does not I did not mean to suggest that there's no sense
in which there's like quote punishment or propitiation. Uh, but in our review,
that doesn't mean what the Protestant think it means. So let me give
you an example where John Damascus comments on this from the Orthodox view. I
think his take on it is really probably the best if you got a an
exposition to the Orthodox faith, Book three, and if you scroll down to
the very end of book three is where he talks about what happened in the
death of Christ. So he talks about the deification of the flesh, the
theandric energies. And then if you get down to about twenty five six,
John Damascus talks about what happened in the passion and the death of Christ.
So he does use the term punishment, I think at one point here,
but we're going to see what that exactly means in relationship to the death of
Christ. And he says concerning the fact that the divinity of the logos or
the Word remained inseparable from the soul and the body even at the point of
the Lord's death, and that his person or subsistence continued to be one.
Since our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin, for he committed no sin.
Rather he took away the sin of the world. Nor was there any deceit
found in his mouth. He was not subject to death, since death came
into the world through sin Romans five twelve. He dies therefore because he took
on himself death on our behalf. And he makes himself an offering to the
Father for our sakes, For we had sinned against him, and it was
meet that he should receive ransom for us, and that we should thus be
delivered from condemnation. God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been
offered to the tyrants. So it is a propitiation and an offering of the
human nature and the death of the human nature to the Father, and by
extension, to the whole triad. As the later Byzantine sono'd say, after
tasting of a sinless, life giving body, he perishes and brings up again
all of old whom he swallowed up, that the heroine of Hades, that's
all of those that are dead in shield. For as darkness appeared upon the
introduction of the light, so death is repulsed before the assault of life,
that is Christ's descent into Hades is what he's talking about. Thus, he
brings life to all, but he brings death to the destroyer. Wherefore although
he died as a man and his Holy Spirit was severed from his immaculate body.
So what does John Damascus think is going on in the death of the
Lord. Is it a punishment of the Father damning the son like traditional Calvinists
and Lutherans say, No, it is the severance of the human soul from
the human body. Because the divine nature divinity is impassable. Christ could never
be damned because he shares the same nature as the Father and the Spirit,
the same will as the Father and the Spirit. And because the paracaresis in
divine and dwelling, you could never have one person the trinity, being damned.
So what the Father and the Holy Spirit no longer in dwell the son?
They set their will against the son when he as the same will as
then that's crazy, it's blasphemous. Is anti trinitarian. No, the punishment
is the severance of the human soul from the human body, which is the
same punishment combination that all human beings have undergone. But the difference is that
Christ was a righteous man and did not deserve the punishment right, and so
he could offer up to the Father an unjust severance of human soul from human
body, and by destroying the power of Satan in Hades and then resurrecting that
body when he ascended. That becomes the fulfillment of the offering of the human
nature that he assumed to the Father, and by extension also to the Son
and to the Spirit, because the son can offer up his own human nature
which is now healed and restored to the Father in the Holy Spirit. So
it's a triadic offering. By the way, this is all in the liturgy
itself. It's not just my theology. When the visiting Synod condemned Satirico's,
they did so on the basis of the liturgy thine own, of thine own,
we offer unto thee. So you under said that the liturgy of reflecting
the same thing. John Mascus is teaching right here where he says for body
and resul received simultaneous at the beginning of their being, the subsistence of the
word. There he's talking about. Let me let me go up a little
bit. Although he died his man, his spirit was severed from his body,
yet his divinity remain inseparable from both, I mean, his soul and
body, So that even though the one divine hypostasis. That's the second person
of the Godhead was not divided into two because you might think, well,
when he died and his soul was severed from his body, was the logos
severed. No, the logos always remained a single divine hypostasis, united to
both the body in the tomb and to the soul as it descended into hades.
In fact, the logos, the second person of the Godhead is the
person to the soul that descends into hades. For body and soul received simultaneously
the beginning of their being in the subsistence of the word. In other words,
the logos create the body and the soul, which he would unite himself
too. Although they were severed from one another by death, body and soul,
yet they continued, each of them to have the one divine person or
subsistence of the word as their person. Body and soul have one person that
still unites them, that is still the subject or the agent of that body,
the divine person of the Word, so that the one subsistence of the
word alike is subsistence to words of the Word and of the soul in the
body. And no time was there any other soul or body having a subsistence
of their own. That's meant to exclude Nestorianism. So the human soul or
body never had their own agency, They were never their own person, even
in the death of Christ. And by the way, this refutes an Astorianism,
and it refused Monophysitism. The death of Christ refutes both of these right
here, because if he's a Tertian quid, as Monophysites think, then the
divine nature died. Okay, you can die, it's in passable. So
you have to have these distinctions even after the incarnation. Very simple, for
although he says Christ was always one, the subsistence of the Word was forever
one, and although the soul was separated from the body hypostatically, they were
united through the person of the Word. The Word is the second person of
God at the divine personal Word. And then he goes on to say that
the corruption, the destruction of the flesh meant that when his human soul was
severed from his human body, he went down into hades. There's a whole
section on the descent into hades, but there is a section where he talks
about that he underwent. I think John Damascus refers to punishment in regard to
the severance of the human soul from the human nature or from the human body.
So there is a section where he talks about that, but he owners
and that it's just the death that we all undergo. It's not Jesus being
damned and going to Hell in the sense of like I mean, he goes
to Hades, but he's not damned by the Father by going into Hades.
So Christ's soul, when it was deified, descend it into Hades in order
that just as a son of righteousness rose upon those in the earth Maluchi four
too, so likewise he might bring light to those who sit in the earth,
under the earth and darkness and in shadow of death Isaiah nine two.
That's talking about Hades. So this is the herrowing of Hades. Jesus goes
into the kingdom of death, the kingdom of Satan, destroys the power of
Satan. When he resurrects and brings body and soul back together, it's fully
deified, as Saint Cyril says. And then so then Second Corinthians like five,
where it says like he made him her new no sin became sin on
our behalf. Would that be like the guilt of sin. No, it's
it's called by appropriation. John Damascus has a section at where he actually quotes
that very verse. I'm just trying to find it, and he says,
tack like this mean by appropriation. By appropriation just means as if he were
a sinner, or as if he were a curse. The son of God
cannot be a curse. By the way, sin doesn't have ontological existence,
so when it says He made him to be sin, he doesn't literally become
sin. We would be Manicheans if we thought that which is here here it
is chapter twenty five concerning the appropriation, that is that just means by it
appears to be. It is observed that there are two appropriations, one that
is natural and essential, and one that is relative. The natural and essential
one is that by which the Lord and his love for man, took on
himself our nature, with all of our natural attributes, becoming in nature,
in truth a man, and by making trial of that which is natural.
But personal and relative appropriation is when one assumes the person of another relatively,
for instance, out of pity or love, and so it goes on.
He goes on to say that, yeah, Christ did not literally become a
curse for us, but that he took upon himself and was accounted as a
curse right for our sakes Galatians three fifteen. So it doesn't it doesn't mean
that he literally becomes death sin curse. It means he's accounted as such.
That's good. I have another question around like liturgy and like holy tradition.
I don't know if that's on top of it. You can ask whatever you
want, so I'm pretty I don't know much on it about the liturgy or
the Holy tradition. But one of the like I guess skepticisms that I have
is that, like, if it was passed down from the Apostles, why
are there so many different variations, like even within Eastern Orthodox or Catholic Why
why are there all these different, you know, liturgies. Why is it
not because the Apostles went and established liturgies for different pece people speaking different languages
with different customs. Okay, So it's not like the Apostles went out with
like the one Apostolic liturgy, right, So there's different liturgical traditions in the
main seas of early Christendom, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch or the first main
three patrine seas, right, but there's other ones as well, right,
because the church gets set up in Ephesus, the church gets set up you
know in you know sartists in all these different places and mentioned the Book of
Revelations. So there's there's Apostolic churches set up all over the place. And
the fundamental sort of pattern of the liturgy is pretty much the same, whether
it's the Roman Rite or whether it's what would later be called Liturgy of Saint
Mark or Liturgy of Saint Basil, Liturgy of Saint John Christistom. I mean
there's kind of a there's a basic pattern that's very similar, but there's distinctions
because they're also trying to translate it into the vernacular. Right. We're not
Roman Catholics where that we think that Latin is like some magical language. It's
the Church has always put the language into the vernacular. What's a good one
for like an English you know to go check out? I guess you mean
an Orthodox church? Yeah, are you in the US or where you're at
I'm in Arizona. I don't know exactly what was going on in Arizona,
but I would go for a Russian Orthodox church, an Antiochian church, a
Serbian church, or a Romanian church. Okay, cool, you'll just have
to check out different ones and see which which ones are good. Yeah,
good questions though, appreciate it. Man, Okay, sure, father Deacon,
are you there? I'm because you know you and I talked about the
female substitutionary atonement and then I gave a kind of chiss kind of continuing education
orthodoxy education on it, and these words atonement, propitiation, sacrifice. What
do we notice. It's the same mistake. They assume that there's only kind
of one meaning, right, and it's the meaning that they mean that supports
their position, and then they read that in but words don't actually work that
way. So with the propitiation, it's this kind of idea that a sacrifice
to one meaning of it could be a sacrifice to appease an angry God.
And so it's the pagan view. And and then what's funny is, well,
that's obviously where it can only have one meaning, and that's the meanings
here. So I'm gonna build this whole foreign theology pagan dealty around that.
And they constantly do this, right, especially the Reform and the Calvinists with
reading Romans and these various things that and offering. So I like that you
quoted the Saint John Damascus on that that the humanities offered to the Trinity.
I'm trying to think what else with this that's from the exact exposition of the
Orthodox faith. I know, greg Saint Gregory Palamos also talks about it,
talks about So the idea is that the fathers themselves give a clear understanding of
what these words mean and how you're supposed to read them. Yeah. Absolutely,
what ransom and offering in those things? Anyways? Yeah, have you
got a second? Could you man the chat for a second? Oh?
Yeah, the chat? No, I mean on here? Okay, how
do I do that? Just talk to these people? D O? What's
updo? What's up to you? Hey? You can you hear me?
Yeah? I can hear you. Okay, I'm not really here to debate.
I just said a few questions for you. Jay. I've sort of
been listening to your channel for a while, but now I've been watching your
stuff more recently, so I guess you usually use presuppositional argument. So I
was actually wondering if you could maybe point me to a good sources on how
to learn them. And I was actually looking around on presupposition earlier today and
they seem to have a bad reputation. I was on Reddit, so that
might explain it. But people were implying they were city arguments. So can
you maybe explain that why people dislike presuppositional arguments? Probably, dick and you
want to address that. I got to use the restaurant. So it's just
kind of a misunderstanding of what presupposition all arguments are. So they they straw
me on them because of their misunderstanding, thinking, well, they're not arguments.
You just presuppose this thing and then it's kind of blind faith and then
you don't have to argue for anything. Well, that's not what presuppositions.
It is, first and foremost, it's the recognition that we all presupposed things
by which we interpret evidence and argue things. In other words, there's nobody
that's presupposition lists, if that makes sense, and that frames the way that
we do arguments. What constitutes is evidence. And a lot of this goes
to what even the secular epistemologists. Modern epismologists like quin at Al had already
recognized that the myth of the given of this kind of neutrality, that evidence
just kind of stands on its own kind of current correspondence theories. And so
that's the first step in presupposition is that there is no independent evidence independent aret
me. It's independent of your framework, your paradigm, your presuppositions. So
that's point number one. Then it goes into well, what would serve as
far as presuppositions as the requits the kind of justification criteria, So it moves
into a kind of a meta epistemological consideration of what constitutes as justifications. And
the problem is that in the non presuppositional view, and it doesn't mean any
presupposition is correct, but in the kind of evidentialist view, it's and you
see this in natural theology, you see this in you know, Cartesian whatever
the philosophy may be. They end up making arbitrary presuppositions about what counts is
justifications. And if you question them on that, oh no, that's where
you just have to start. But if you ask them all, well,
why is that a justification? Why is that? Or I need to start,
they can't answer that. So they never offer anything that and they themselves
have presuppositions i e. First principles, they never do the work that they
wanted to do, and so there are either viciously circular, Well it's true,
if my whole paradigm in system's true, then it would make it true.
But that's exactly what's in question, or it's simply just arbitrarily asserted as
a justification and never even gets into the domain of justification. Well it's because
I say so. So really, what the presuppositions would be looking at is,
well, what sort of presuppositions would work, would do the work?
What possibly could satisfy those kinds of demands that it's a justification for these other
justification criteria. And when you think about it, nothing else, nothing can
do the work other than God in his revelation. What possibly could that's basically
the presuppositions ideas. So people get really upset with presuppositionism. Why because they're
holding to their ideological idols. They want they want you just to grant them
all their presuppositions so they can make their arguments. But you're moving the question
back farther. You're moving it to, well, what's your criteria for your
justification criteria? And does that do the work. Oh, it doesn't do
the work. So hopefully that kind of explains. Does that make sense?
Well, what I've seen so I've listened to I've mostly actually lately been listening
to you debate Protestants on solar scripture, and from the few debates that I've
listened to, you seem to be encountering the same problem, which is trying
to get them to justify the scriptures that they are, you know, using
for solo scripture, like how do you know which ones are the actual canon?
And I guess this applies, you know, the same kind of thing
as with the atheists, where you're trying to get them to explain why they
believe a thing, and they're trying to just you know, force you into
the model that they've constructed the debate and in which they would win the debate
if you accepted their you know, I guess assumptions, right, you know,
trying to debate the Bible based on you know, only a logical empirical
framework. That's what they want, but you know, since you're not accepting
it. I don't think I've seen any of these debates actually go that direction.
They either pretend to get confused or they are just confused about what you're
asking them. So I guess that's sort of why I'm more. I don't
know if you have literature on presuppositional arguments. Yeah, I mean there's tons
of literature in the academic literature just on transcendental arguments, from people like p.
F. Strawsen or Barry Stroud, you know, people even questioning it.
I mean, there's a lot of literature on transcendental arguments, which are
that's separate from the transcendent argument for God's existence. I mean there's some overlap,
but they're different things. I mean, the argument is just about necessary
conditions. Basically, X is the necessary condition of why why therefore X.
So that's the basic form of the argument. And then what we're doing in
the transit argument for God is basically just saying that when it comes to worldviews
as a whole, the only way to prove or disprove entire world views is
to compare the two world views. And if the Christian world view is the
only one that in terms of its metaphysics, it's ethics, and it's epistemology,
that it can actually do the grounding work and can give a logical,
coherent justification for how it's possible to have knowledge claims, ethical claims, or
reality claims metaphysical claims. Then Christianity is the true worldview. So that's the
argument. And most of the time people aren't understanding what paradigm level questions are,
or they don't understand what a transit argument is, and they think that,
oh, you're just saying God exists because he must exist, or I
presuppose God exists, therefore he exists. No, that's not the argument.
The argument is X is the necessary condition of why why Therefore X. God's
existence, for example, is the necessary precondition of knowledge. We have knowledge,
therefore God exists. God is the necessary precondition. The Christian metaphysic is
the necessary precondition for reality claims. We make reality claims, therefore the Christian
metaphysic is the case. That's how we're making the argument. Now I'm not
I understand that an atheist isn't going to accept that. That's why we have
to do the groundwork of going through and explaining why this or that argument doesn't
work, or this or that thing that they're claiming is inconsistent with their paradigm.
So we are first of all, rejecting as far as he can point
it out that there's any such thing as common ground, or that there's any
facts that are not theory laden. We would say that everything is in some
way theory laden, because nothing is just self evident, and a lot of
argumentation, a lot of evidentialism or foundationalism and epistemology. They want to believe
that things are just self evident, they're just clear, they're just obvious as
to what they are. But we just simply call them to the mat on
that and point out that that doesn't exist. And you can easily demonstrate that
that doesn't exist because they're always caught in some kind of circle, which again
foundationalism rejects circular argmentation. Presubositionalism says, at the paradigm level, everybody is
a circular argument proponent, and so the foundations must either accept circularity or he
must accept that there's just self evidence for his founding maxims, which becomes arbitrary
in which he can't just divine. So really there's no other option to go
to, we would argue, other than a form of coherence or a form
of paradigm level consistency. So that's not coherence theory in in a pagan atheist
sense, is just saying that world views are holistic, epistemic holism. None
of these things exist in a vacuum or operate in some sort of independent self
evidence. Okay, I got a series of questions that are somewhat related.
So the next one is, I know you have an Orthodox reading list.
I haven't checked it out yet. Do you have a reading list based off
like the you know, global elites or you know, the sort of conspiracies
that we see going on today? I mean I have some way. Do
I have a global elites book list? Yeah? Yeah, and just stuff
about like the conspiracies we see happening. Yeah, my website has a giant
book list. Okay, yeah, I'll check that out. I mean there's
also a book. There's also recommended book on presubsitional arguments there too. Okay,
yeah, I really haven't been on the website. So is the the
other prisoner? Is he actual Orthodox priest? He's a deacon with that PhD?
Okay, okay, So my next two questions are I guess they're uh,
they're about Orthodoxy, so I don't really know too much about it.
But what is the I guess position on like what happens to awarded souls and
infants or whatever that? Do they do they go to hell? What?
What's what happens to them? In Orthodoxy? In your world, No,
we don't believe that. We don't automatically proclaim anyone going to hell because no
one is. We're not told about who goes to hell. So we're not
medieval Roman Catholics or yeah, we don't have an Augustinian kind of notion sutoriology,
subtoriology and anyways, we would say that obviously they don't have any personal
sense and God's gracious and so yeah, I don't see why they would be
in the kingdom. But well, I mean we're just simply not told.
We don't. We just have to commend them to God's God's mercy. So
we're not told on that. But good question. We're gonna move on.
So to the guy in the chat about uh A s A s f A
s f D, I mean, why don't you come make the arguments that
you're making in the chat? There's the link, So if you want to
make your point about I don't understand what you're arguing there, but come make
your argument here otherwise you're just waiting, wasting everyone's time. Also, brother
sid, why don't you come to the discussion as well? All right?
Next up is Kine? And what's up Kine? Okay, Well, if
he's been banned before, just keep banning his account at a point in wasting
his time. He's just gonna keep creating accounts. It's like these people don't
have something anything better to do. By the way, to the Protestant talking
about icon, Orthodox church are full of icons. I mean this is the
drop your Duro Europa Synagogue from the mid two hundreds in Syria, famous synagogue.
What do you know, It's full of icons all over the wall.
Look at that. What's up? Did you want to say something? Dude,
Caine, you gonna I'm mute? Oh yeah, can you hear me?
Yes, sir? All right? Cool. I had three, I
think pretty quick questions. Okay, the first is about the it is the
I think it was Gregory the second of Constantinople, the patriarch, communical patriarch.
He talked about a claw. He talked about a response to the affilioquay
called He's spoke of an eternal manifestation right of the sphere, by the Sun
and the council of blackne blackernee is this terminology used term manifestation in the Fathers?
Yes, oh, which which Fathers uses well. Basil and Athenasius talk
about manifestation, Okay, so they just talk about manifestation in general. No,
there's a specific point. For example, that both Athenacious and even Cyril
use about distinguishing essence and energy. So, for example, the you can't
equate the generation of the son with the act of creating, right, and
so the argument is made that there has to be a distinction between the act
of the Father generating the son and the act of creating the world, and
that leads to the distinction between what is proper to God according to nature and
what is proper to God according to will and council and soil. Later in
the Cappadocians, for example, they'll speak about the movement of the spirit being
the same in the triad as the movement of the energies, and so that
some of those energies, for example, cannot be only related to the created
order. So, for example, the energy of divine providence is distinct from
the energy of divine glory, and that's because Clearly God has always manifested divine
glory, whereas he has not always exercised providence because he's not always had a
world over which to be provident because of creation nex Nilo. So the development.
If you're asking if there's a specification of the eternal manifestation doctrine in the
Middle Ages and Byzantium, Yes, but the idea is already there in the
Cappadocians and in Basil and in Athanasius. Okay, and I was I had
some questions on the energy as since the cincture, and at least one particular
point, by the way, David just had Doc Bradshaw on discussing that very
point that you just raised. Okay, cool, I'll check out that video
David Orhan with Doctor David Bradshaw on the eternal manifestation. Okay, go ahead.
Someone sent me out a I think part of the book of Vladimir Lawsky's
Mystical Theology, and he was talking about a section where he was talking about
how the energies are natural to the divine persons, which I think is what
it said. Yeah, that's what I just said, they're natural energies,
right, that's a that's a cappa docian terminology. Okay, because because energy
proceeds from nature. Okay. And then the distinction, so the energies are
not the essence, and they're not the persons, right, Persons have an
essence which makes them what they are the divine persons, and their energies are
the what proceeds from them in terms of attributes, actions, thought, wills,
whatever. All these different terminologies are encapsulated under energies because energy can be
action, it can be attribute, it can be doing a miss power that
is either actualized or not actualized. It can be all those things. Okay,
And in this way they're distinct, but don't entail parts, just like
distinctions between father and son and spirit don't intail parts. Okay, So it's
the same distinction, correct, Okay. And then my last question is I
was I've been told that the Roman Catholic Church has dogmatized act the doction of
God is act as peers, and I was told it was in trend fourth
Lateran and another council, and I've looked through all their decrees and I can't
in Vatican Wan and I can't find this. It's true, Yeah, it's
true that the phrase actus puris is not in the dogmatic definitions, but pretty
much every theologian that exegetes what's meant by fourth Later and Peter Lombard like,
if you look at at Ludwig Att, I think it's pages like thirty one,
nine, thirty one, thirty two at will read them as actus purists.
If you look at you know Ed Faser's book, I mean he exposits
it as actus purists. So I mean it's pretty unanimous amongst the Roman Catholics
that pure act as as what God is is dogmatized, because they do make
the statement that God is not like his his essence is his existence, which
is basically to say the same thing as pure act. So basically so even
though pure act itself, that phrase might not be in a dogmatic statement.
If you make the statement that God's essence is his existence, which is in
some of the dogmatic positions, it's it's an equivalent statement saying the same thing,
okay. And then so then when like for example, I don't know
if Bona Venturance Scotis have a different view simplicity, but when like the Scotis,
one is permitted that's not necessarily act as peers and that's dogmatic. Is
it just the case of one dogma and two interpretations or like what? I
don't know how they would I mean, so I the identity thesis that's argued
for at the fourth Lattering Council is is identified specifically as Lombard's identity thesis.
And Lombard's identity thesis is very strict. So it says that the attributes are
identical amongst themselves, right, that's the that's the lombard In view. So
fourth Laterin is saying I can pull it up, feel me to here.
Fourth Lateran is saying that they accept the Lombard view and that they explicitly identify
the attributes as equivalents among equivalent amongst themselves, which is what's called identity thesis,
right right, So how oh, and why a person uh here is
the section where they accept the Lombard it's kenon two of fourth lettern How and
why a Scotis could then argue that the formal distinction is then allowable? Is
I mean, I would just argue that it's an inconsistency in their doctrines.
And I think that you can see this when you look at Uniate theology as
well. So it's not just a it's not just a question of Scotism versus
actives purists. It's also a question of well, there's entire uniate groups that
reject all of this. So you see, Roman Catholicism allows for all kinds
of different not just a differences on theology, but differences on dogma as long
as you submit to the Pope. Because I can be a Uniate and reject
all of this and still be a Roman Catholic or incommunie with the Pope Catholic.
Do you see what I'm saying. Yeah, it was just I just
found it interesting that basically they had the doctrine of general like simplicity, and
then they had about like two to three permitted interpretations in that if one of
them was dogmaed, wouldn't make sense to have Well let me let me rephrase
the let me just rephrase the argument like those forget the Scotis. Let's just
say, if I'm at uniate and I affirm pallemism, which all Uniates do,
then how am I supposed to affirm fourth Lattern Council? I mean,
I mean, I'm not a theologian. I wouldn't be able to know what
I mean. It's I would assume they could come up with a position,
Rome would verifire something on that. But how how could there be a position
on this given the fact that the Palomite Synods condemn the teaching of the Roman
Church and the Roman Church at twelve seventy four, and then at Florence condemns
what Palamas teaches. So do you see what I'm saying? Like, the
Palomite Synods condemned the Roman Catholic position in John Becos the unionizer, right,
the guy who's arguing for Latin Union. Right. So how is so?
How is palamism and how how can Palamas, Photius and Mark of Ephesus be
saints in the Roman Catholic Church now given the fact that they are were formerly
condemned, and they condemned each other in councils. Oh well, I'm not
sure about their sainthood. But I've seen different theologians you have attempted to reconcile
Palamism with you know, Catholic Okay, but let's forget so for whether it's
reconcilable or not. Were they not formally condemned, They were formally condemned,
Okay, So the Roman Caclolary Church changed its position on a formal condemnation of
heretic after several centuries for the purpose of what the humanism for union to have
more unions come back, right, right for umanism? Yes, okay,
so we're just as long as we can admit that there's like a change in
the position, that it's not ultimately about the the That's what the reason I'm
saying that is that that actually explains how the Roman Calthy position isn't ultimately about
the theology. It's about you can be a uniate and reject all of this
theology and do what you want to as long as you accept the pope.
Okay, that's about all the questions I have. Thank you for answer.
Yeah. I would say check out the David Irhan video that he did with
doctor Bradshaw the other day. Was really good. All right, cool,
thank you? Yeah, good questions Jordan, what's up? Hello? Yes,
sir, Hello, Jay? I had two quick questions if you don't
mind, Yeah, what's up? I was wondering two questions. One say
John Damascus, uh uh yeah? On is the fountain of knowl? He
gives airstyll. Ten transcendental categories I was wondering, one, how do we
know that these are like the the final categories and there's not like more categories
because some people try to deduce them imminently, I guess, versus just using
Aristotle's method, I'd say probably like and you see this a lot in like
post Kantianism. Yeah, I was gonna say, with Kantianism, my kid
deduced more of these. I'm not sure. I'm open to the possibility that
there's not just ten. That's a good that's a good point. Okay,
cool, because some people have seen skepticism relatism about trying to deduce the exact
categories. But for a sign, Yeah, I admit I don't know the
answer that that's a good question. Another question I have is that regarding the
Koja too, I see I saw your critique of it, like you were
debating someone and you said that it presupposed like with philosophy. And also you
bring up the refutation that one blog posts or the refutation of idealism from Kant
where he talks about the inner and outer sense, how inner sense presupposed time
determinations which I determine my own, you know, my my own existence.
In so we have to have well existing existing isn't occurring and occurring is a
time determinant. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly, Yeah, that's what
I mean. I guess my my criticism is that is that how does that
challenge the contract tokens? But I think the most like the most that demonstrate
is that a gaycart in is you know, first and second meditation is wrong
about the clear and distinct ideas thing where you know, at least private internalism
to my own private data or like my own you know, mental states.
Right, but you know, it doesn't I guess, disapprove that there's still
this principle of consciousness that I still have even kan't believes that there is this
you know, this principle consciousness that and I think although he does, you
know, he does well. So even if you were to restrict it to
just some kind of existing consciousness, the point is that the argument doesn't demonstrate
that to be the case. It's a non sequitor because the point of the
argument was to get to the most fundamental thing that doesn't rely on any other
other things. And so if your argument is returned is still depending upon things
like linguistic meaning, and if it's still depending upon things like grammar. And
if it's still depending upon things like the ability to predicate, and if it's
still depending upon things like the time determinants, then it's not a clear and
distinct foundational idea. Well, you know, I think they just say it's
like the most fundamental, just like God's most fundamental presupposition, right like the
Well but why why should I grant that? Well, but it's not the
most fundamental if it's relying on time determinants, Well, it's I don't think
even Descartes says we can even you know, presupposed time even there or wait
what he's talk a little bit slower. Let's just say it again. So
I just didn't hear you go ahead that we haven't even deduced the concept of
time yet. Right, so the argument, right, so the argument's inconsistent.
The reason I might, you know, you might give it otherwise is
that he doesn't see it as like a like a proposition. It's more of
an exclamation, a self referential, self authenticating, like action that's only brought
about because there's something happening at all. So it's more like imminently deduced rather
than you know, having this concept of time from the beginning because you know
the idea of time and space, Like, well, this is just a
So this is just redefining time as not relating to something that occurs in beginning,
middle, and in increments. I mean, that's what we mean by
time. So now time is becoming just the thing that's in question, just
self recurring consciousness. That's not what time is. Nobody believes that. Nobody
conceives of time as self recurring consciousness, right, I mean, that's not
what I'm saying. I'm saying there is time and it is a part.
Okay, has has he demonstrated time yet in this first proposition from from he
has it when we have consciousness. No, but it's only after that.
Okay, then it's not the starting point because it relies on the existence of
time. Doesn't matter whether he has a clear definition of time. It's just
the point is that it's relying on something else, and so it's not it's
not self evident. Well, I mean, like, what ground can we
say that descartes presupposes the you know, the principle of time because to say
that to thinking is an occurring or thinking happens, an occurrence is a time
determination. It is occurring, now it occurred, then it occurred, will
occur. The phrase itself presupposes time determination. Well, how do we know
this is like something that's only known after we found out the justification, because
now now the words don't mean what they typically mean, because now we're having
to redefine the words to rescue the principle, And so that means it's a
weak move, right. I mean, do you do you not think the
argument presupposes language? No, No, because it's a it's a thought itself,
right, the thought to be the thought to have meaning is linguistic.
It's translated into a linguistic proposition. So it's not just there's such a thing.
It's just a thought. That's so it's a meaningless thought. It's not,
by the way, it's not just a it's an actual argument. He
thinks it's an argument, right, right, But okay, so if it's
an argument, it's not just a thought. Well, you like, for
example, if it's like a you know, transcendental argument, it's kind of
that's not what a transcendental argument is. Not doing that older people, there
are people who interpret his argument like that. Yeah, but it's not because
he's a foundationalist he's the arts foundationalist, Father Deacon, could you speak to
this? Is it a foundationalist? And he's like a prime I'm not,
We're not contient, dude. A foundationalist. Descartes is. And again it's
the same question as first of all, Daycardes critique, because none of the
things that he says are clear and distinct are ever clear and distinct. And
then it's even viciously circular. A way that he gets to clear and distinct
is from non clear and distinct ideas that basically ground that and simply just to
say thought that it's supposed to be this clear and distinct kind of idea that
doesn't depend on anything, that's one of the most ambiguous things in philosophy.
Philosophy. Second of I'd say third, even if I granted Descartes all this
stuff, it still doesn't tell me why uh self referencing thought or what philosophers
and epistemological immediacy is a justification. Even if I granted everything, it's a
stupid it's a stupid project's totally inconsistent and everything that he does, We're gonna
we're gonna move on. I'm not trying to be me too. Ordan.
I just I don't want to get bogged down in the cont thing over and
and over, Dan, Don Mullerter, Dan Older, what's up? Man?
Hey, I'm mute, dude, Dan, I'm mute. Do you
want to chat or not? Why'd your request to speak if you don't want
to chat? All right? Roscoe? Oh wait, hold on, Ramrod?
He was from the other chat. So I want Ramrod to come because
he's he's been waiting for a long time. Roscoe or Ramrod? What's up?
Okay, I'm mute, y'all gotta I'm mute man. Oh okay about
that excess the forward country to me? Brother, what's up? Well?
So, I don't know if you remember, because it's been several hours,
but I was in the Timothy Gordon h stream and I was the guy that
said, uh, I remember, you know right right? So the basically,
you know, just to kind of give you an idea where my head
spaces that were this question that I'm coming from you is, I went,
I've been following this stuff for a long time. I converted when I was
like, uh like fourteen or fifteen of my own volition, uh, and
I converted to where that was Catholicism, Roman and so essentially you know,
and it paired with certain things about my uh like, I got really deep
into the history, really deeper in the theology, you know, the stereotypical
sort of tread personal formation. And as things went on, you know,
with the with the Roman Church, I started to see like just you know,
like I listened to a big part of my ideological sort of formation as
a historian is that I learned, at some point, as I'm mature,
to look at both sides of an issue. Yeah, I agree, I
agree, totally look at both sides. And I had a very personal experience
with that because I'm a genealogist and it's studying my family history I did.
I not only learned that certain things I had taken for grammed about my ancestry
were not only totally wrong, but to give you an idea, for years,
I was walking around thinking that I was descended from you know, like
you know, like Irish Catholics and you know, we fell away in America.
But being the exact opposite is true. I mean, like the earliest
ancestor in my family could be traced to Cromwell's occupiers of Ireland. So imagine
me being like a stauch Irish Catholic and learning that I'm not only Anglo Saxon.
But oh yeah, we did. We did come from Ireland. We
went there and killed all the papers and took their land, you know.
So that was kind of the beginning of like as a historian, I had
to sit there and uh, I had to sit there and sort of think
as somebody who believed in the power of the democracy of the dead and you
know, things like that, And I had to think, you know,
as someone who learned all this history and stuff and democracy of the dead,
what is that as a term I heard somewhere once in like like Chesterton.
Basically, it's the idea of like, you know, our ancestors matter,
like our heritage matters. Essentially. I heard the phrase once and I think
it came from Chesterton and stuck with me ever since. So just to give
you like an idea, as I was in harmony with everything that's going on
with Rome right now, like you know, and then learning this about me,
I had to sit there and ask myself, as somebody that came to
admire this supposed golden age of Roman Catholicism, is the one true faith.
I had to sit there and realize that, you know, as someone again
looking at both sides of the issue. I listened to everybody from from Loten
to you to you know where Peter is, to Marshall, to both Gordon
brothers. I mean, so what I've come to learn as someone who reached
primary sources is that, you know, let's just assume, for the sake
of which you know, let's just assume that the Roman Catholic claims are true,
which I now doubt, let's assume they are. Well, if they
are true, and if the document and like say like mortality an animous and
mediatre day by plast the twelve which even the craziest say they still faces the
valid pope. Right. So basically like we're living like to be a devout
Catholic still even a tread, you know, is to live in like what
I've started calling a metaphysical theological paradox. And you know, just as somebody
that's grembling with a lot of this stuff, you know, uh, it's
like, you know, I've started to look into my own actual faith tradition
and you know, examine you know, like the reformers and things like that,
because I had to ask myself, what did these guys see, you
know, in like fifteen hundred, sixteen hundred that not only made them turn
against the religion that had been theirs for at least a thousand years. Yeah,
I saw, I saw your reformer comment in the chat. I remember
that. Yeah. Yeah, I just had to ask what did they see
that made them not only turn against the Roman Church but become the most violent
exporters of anti papalists, you know, warmongering in the Western world, I
mean, you know, and it sort of just made me think about our
own, like like our own the period a lot of Catholics find themselves in.
And I just feel like, at a certain point, you know,
you just got to stop doing the mental gymnastic. You got to just stop
doing the mental gymnastics and realize it doesn't make sense, you know, like
it just does not make sense anymore. And I guess the main thing that
I would ask you with your knowledge, you know, is that you know
of history and everything else, is like, what did the reformers see in
the Roman Church at that time, especially in places like England that were very
Catholic at one point? What did they see that made them just not only
turn against the Roman Church, but I mean hard left into like straight exportation
of like militants Protestantism, and then not just that, like as a kind
of a pairing question that it's all over the place. But you know,
without the infallible quote unquote magisterium, you know, like about that guide when
we're talking about Christianity here, you know, how do we how does one
how does one know what to believe? You know, when you when you've
spent fifteen years in a faith tradition that if you stop and think about it
really really hard, it feels like it's all just appeal to authority fallacy.
Because I've been reading, like Malantha, I'm really impressed with how hard it
is to find the writings of some of the reformers. I'm really impressed.
I found Calvin and Institute of the Christian Institutes of the Christian Religion. It's
four volumes. I have free kids that don't have time for that. But
it's like I've read the whole thing. Actually, yeah, I've got three
kids, you know, I don't have time for that. I do what
I can't between all the many hats I wear it. But basically, like
you know, it's very impressive me just how like grounded sometimes these guys are
like in like like you know, the Fathers and philosophy and metaphysics. I'm
very impressed. Hold on, So I had to take issue with I mean,
I agree with you all the way up until that point, which is
that how good and grounded they were in philosophy and metaphysics. No, I
don't think any of the Church, any of the Reformers were very good at
philosophy metaphysics at all. I mean, if you mean the main reform like
the Magisterial Reformers, the classic Reformers, now the Scholastic era of Reformers after
them, they got into some of the more nuanced areas of philosophy and metaphysics.
But no, Calvin and Luther were not very interested in philosophy and metaphysics
at all. So that's my first point of disagreement. Second question would be
why why would you immediately consider Protestantism rather than Orthodoxy. I mean, to
be frank, you know, it's the same issue. This isn't gonna sound
really basic. I don't mean to sound condescending if it's really basic, you
know, like I am a Western man, you know, what I mean,
not only have I discovered that, I am like, I'm literally like
like a DNA tist is probably going to show up eighty percent Anglo Saxon.
So it's like, okay, the hold on, hold on, hold.
So I don't I hear this argument a lot. I understand it, and
I hear it a lot from particularly Roman Catholics and people that. Well,
I said, I don't want to sound me. I don't want to sound
rude or condescending. It's fine, it feels it's like, you know,
it feels I don't know, it just feels foreign. And I don't mean
that a bad way. It just feels foreign. I mean, I you
know, I just I don't know. Like that's kind of the question is
like, what did you know? Well, that's another interesting idea. Well,
you understand that every so first point, understand, every Orthodox church is
vernacular, right, So why would it you mean, like a Greek church
is foreign to me because I live in America or something like that. But
I mean what actually determines like authentic my my heritage, because I mean if
I go back to my descent, and I'm saying this because you said you
had an interest in genealogy and you know descent and all that. I mean,
what if I go back to the point where the West was Orthodox,
when would you say that point is when it still is. I think that
the dogmatic point of departure is twelve seventy four, when Lions dogmatically proclaims different
doctrines from the East. Yeah, I've heard. I've heard certain things before,
back in like the early days of like when this whole stratosphere blog thing
was new. I remember like certain guys that were into Orthodox and talking about
sort of like a like a like a trail of blood thing like sort of
actually Harold Godwinson was Orthodox, like you know, stuff like that. That's
not a trailer. It's not anything like the trail of blood. Because we're
not saying that there was always secret Orthodox in Anglo Saxon England, clearly that
it eventually departed. It's just talking about what was the normal functioning of the
church up until you know Norman invasion, up until you know the acceptance of
more and more elements of papism. I mean, this is why, for
example, France had the tradition of Gallicanism, because the Gallican view of which
it persisted all the way up until Vatican one, right, didn't assume papism.
Now, why would there be Gallicanism there? Why would there be this
older idea of national churches which existed at the time of ecumenical councils if this
was all like a papal thing. You see what I'm saying. And to
your point about the Reformers, one of the reasons why the Reformers went so
virulently against Rome was that they were not just motivated by theological issues. The
Reformers also had state power behind the particular the German princes behind Luther, who
had an issue with the papacy, which had a lot of temporal power.
So it's I'm not saying you're saying this, but a lot of people think
of this as just a bunch of theology nerds debating when there's huge elements of
geopolitical, historical statist power moves being made to try to control the burgeoning Protestant
movement. So part of the reason Luther went on the crusade that he did
was because he's motivated by German princes out of the pope right right, And
you know, as somebody that used to be a Habsburg show like you know,
you're you're you're talking to Like, I get what you're saying, Like
the Schmalden League and all of that. There were big political concerns, which
of course out rules spiritual concerns, but a lot of it. You know,
it's easy to say, you know, for me at least, it's
easy to say, all of these guys are just motivated by personal greed,
but a lot of it, you know, especially with Germany, it comes
down to the ancestral rights of the various princes, you know, I mean
it's like, you know, historically a lot of these things with the papacy
and the emperors was a bridgement of their property rights. You know, in
terms moderns, we were like the average person would understand, like it's it's
property rights. You know, they they their land, their authority, they
have the rights. But yeah, so like let's kind of keep from going
to often weird directions here, like so like when it comes though to like,
you know, I think it's it's it's two things, really, uh
you know, I'm I do. I do agree with you that it's a
lot of it's politics, but it is also religion. I don't think it's
like either or for a lot of people, especially the farther down the food
chain you went. I'm sure it was probably both, you know, Like
I just I just got to wonder, like because I know all the horror
stories about the you know, the stripping of the altars in England, the
Netherlands, Like I'm just trying to imagine it as somebody that's been a devout
Catholic for years. Like I'm trying to imagine what would motivate people to go
to their like church where they're every generation crowd has been baptized and just like
do horrible acts of sacrilegion like that. I mean something, things must have
gotten really bad. Maybe in the abstract things are pretty bad for like Roman
Catholics today, but like physically things must have been intolerable for people to get
that mad. You know. That's my Okay, Well let me put let
me just put the question this way. Uh, if we were looking for
the true church, rather than trying to sift between Papism and Protestantism, why
wouldn't we look to the church that operated in the first thousand years and how
it went, how it what was its modus operandi. Why wouldn't that solve
this question. Fair point, sure point, it was a fair point.
Actually, why didn't a lot of was was was? Was Eastern Orthodoxy just
off the map to a lot of these people that had gretch with Rome,
like was were connections to the east? Is not strong enough people to be
like, maybe we should listen to them. I mean, there there were
dialogues and letters sent Luther and other They had dialogues with various patriarchs. But
Luther was committed to Yeah, Luther was committed to the doctrine of sola fide
and that that would be the pillar upon which his church would be built.
So he wasn't interested in anything that wasn't interested in sola fide. Huh,
Okay, that's fair. But yeah, if I wanted to say, like,
you know, maybe learn more about this Anglos connection with Orthodoxy in Britain,
Well what if I told you that? I mean, that might be
an interesting way for you. But it's all wrong headed because I mean,
to me, it sounds like, and this is the case with what I
hear from a lot of Roman Catholics, is that it's sort of this sort
of the irony here. And I'm not accusing you of this, I'm just
saying that the irony is that a lot of times they're saying they will criticize
Orthodoxy as being ethnophilitists, And then the Roman Catholics turn around and say,
but my base trad heritage, my base trad Roman Catholic heritage. Bro.
And it's like, you can't you can't have it both ways. I mean,
either it's about ultimately what's true and what's false, and your heritage is
second to that, or you want to be a Pagan because ultimately your your
heritage is pagan, is it not? Well, I suppose everybody is exactly.
I mean the Pagans. The Pagans actually argue this. They actually argue
that if you really want to be consistent to be a Pagan. Yeah,
well, I mean, you know the thedn't they run into things like video
Kid and his interactions with Carlos Magnus. You know. But anyway, Like,
I have an interesting input on that whole premise of like, I would
be willing to bet if you nailed a lot of these internet treads to the
wall, Like, because I'm being honest about myself here, you nailed a
lot of these internet treads to the wall and made them talk about what got
them interested in Roman Catholicism in the first place. I'm pretty sure it would
be something like with my experience where you're growing up in the Bible Belt in
the Deep South. You're growing up in the Bible Belt, and you're looking
around at Christianity and you haven't questioned it. You know, you're starting to
mature, maybe you're getting into like history and the like, and yeah,
what's going on. Yeah, you start looking around at what's going on around
you, and you're just like, for me, my thing was the Romans.
That's how I realized something was wrong because I just looked at what these
people were doing, and I said, as a Cicero fan, not one
Roman senator would have been convinced by any of his nonsense, Not a single
Patrician would have been would have bought any of this insanity like this would have
not gone over well at all, you know. And then that was kind
of my departure point, and for me, I went I ended up going
to like Catholicism, especially trad Catholicism, because I wanted something with some guts,
you know, something with some meaning and some purpose. And you know
what happens to all these guys, is we walked into the average Catholic church.
It's the same kind of people you just walked away from, and you
know, and then you just cope because you've been convinced of the theology.
And then lately what's happened the last ten fifteen years I think is people are
just like that know the theology. It's like, it's not you're just like,
well, at some point, man, we're just living a theological metaphysical
paradox. Like I got. I got like irritated at the end of that
stream because the whole like you know, my Body of Christ and the passion
thing. I'm like, dude, this is a straight trad cope, man,
Like I just got done reading a lot of the Western spiritual fathers like
Demockford and Capital of CM and all that. I just got done going through
that, and nothing like this like shows up in any of their stuff.
And this is a straight trad cope based off the Fatama vision. So like,
this is a straight cope like and it's just to me, as somebody
looking at my going, I had to bring it back to this. But
going back to my heritage, you know, whenever things didn't make sense,
you know, to my people. You couldn't, you know, like these
were not the kind of people, the kind of nation that you could throw
a bucket of water on and tell them it was raining, you know what
I mean. Like they looked and they said, something's not adding up here.
Maybe they didn't come to the right conclusions when they realized something wasn't adding
up, but they realized, hey, something's not right here. Okay,
So well, if that's the case, then maybe the people who were raising
that question of something's not right a thousand years ago, maybe they were right.
I mean, because they were saying this, you know, five six
centuries before the reformers. Yeah, that's just a horror. That's just a
horrifying thought, though, isn't it not at all? What I mean is,
well it is, But what I mean is it's a horrifying thought to
think of. It's a horrifying thought to me to think of like all of
the people, you know, we're talking spiritual matters here. It's a horrifying
matter. Think of all the people in the West who were you know,
like lost because they but they genuinely believed, you know, that it was
the true faith, because it was all they were exposed to it's it's a
horrifying thought really to me. On like it's like the vision. I forget
which mystic it was. It's one of the counter Reformation, uh nuns.
And she said that the well anyway, one of the mystics said that the
damn fall like snowflakes in the hell, and it's like it's it's kind of
like a it's kind of a very sort of daunting thing. But yeah,
I think that's Uh. I would just say, like, you know,
check out Orthodoxy, man. I think I think you're gonna be pleasantly surprised
that if you go to an Orthodox church. I don't just mean check it
out intellectually, I mean go visit and check it out and see for yourself.
That would mean my record right right right, I may will, I
may will indeed do that. I have considered it before. I have really
considered it before. But I live in a place where it's it's it's definitely
not big here. In fact, I think the oldest communities here traced themselves
to immigrants who came from the Cold War, like, so they it's not
very big here at all. But uh, it's it's worth checking out,
you know. Uh yeah, it's definitely worth checking out. Well, I
mean your objection seemed to be that there wouldn't be a magisterium, and and
then but you're the same tempted with Protestantism, and I'm and I mean prostism
has less of a claim to any kind of magisterium than what you're saying is
a problem with orthodoxy. Oh yeah, like don't like, don't like,
don't even get me started, Like you know, I was recently, uh
you know, so the it's like, you know, like I was raised
for dominantly, I was baptized the Methodist Church, and recently I looked into
like I have access to a large library near me that was once a seminary
for a very large Baptist nomination, so they have a huge resource of actually
a theology and philosophy, huge and I was very I was very stunned,
like you know, just kind of like, you know, to use what
as the kids say these days, just how base. John Wesley was like,
I mean, you know, it's a you know, and to see
with that today, like yeah, there's no continuity there, Like I would
definitely not be walking into any Protestant church anytime soon. I mean, it's
it's not something I am at all interested in it. And so let's get
back to that registerium question. So when you lose something like that, you
know, when you lose you know, something like that. And on the
topic of losing things, I think again, if you were to put a
gun to a lot of these treads heads, you know, and and they're
they're coming, they're not They're not there for Christ, They're there for the
cultural warp, and then they realize not only is this eschewed by the mainstream
institutional church today, they're actively trying to fight against I mean, I'm not
sure how much more like against it. You can get to the point where
they have very silently started to like declare saints and martyrs people that were executed
as criminals by the Spanish Imperial government in the New World. And it's like,
aren't these the same people that like got the divide right, okay from
you to like govern this place. Like, I mean, it's it's just,
you know, it's getting to the point where it's it's just un it's
it's an unrecognizable thing. And yet people stay, no, it's a it's
a giant woke institution. Yeah, it's it's it's it's it's beyond depressing,
you know, and i's beyond the pressent. But on the magisterial thing,
you know, I'm sure this is again a basic, you know, like
orthodox question when you when you when you start losing that sort of institution where
we can say for certain like, hey, this is the guy we listened
to, this is the this is the holder of the faith of the apostles.
You know, when you lose that, when you lose that, who
do you who who's the uh, who's the go to guy? I mean,
I know, like the I know it's not necessarily just a patriarch,
but like who's the go to here is just the councils. So let's uh
reorient our thinking maybe and consider how do you how do you let's say it's
the year three hundred and you know, we're an average Christian. How do
we know what's the true teaching of the church in the year three hundred.
Yeah, I'm gonna say, I'm gonna say I don't know. And I
just have to say without you know, talking trash about you know, the
last time this question was brought up here. As a historian, I'm like,
I'm like, I could just see the guy flail Man. I was
like, as a historian that knows about the era, like, how I
do wonder how you would know? How would you know? Well, I
mean, are we all just supposed to go ask the pope what the true
faith is? Like? That's like, that's like that's a conceivable thing.
It's not conceivable, right, I mean throughout the Roman Empire. Christianity has
already spread throughout the Roman Empire, their churches all over the place. How
are we gonna It's the year three hundred. We got all kinds of debates
going on the church. We got uh, we got Arians, we got
some re bellions, we got Montanus, we got uh, you know,
gnostics, we got you know, Aeronas lists hundreds of sex by the year
one eighty. So we're out here, we're sifting through scrolls. How are
we going to find out where the church is? We don't have an ecumenical
council yet. Now guess what, there's things that already exist that are already
taking place, which are the normal governance of the church. How do you
what do you think that might be pass true? But how do the bishops
govern the church? You got me there in three hundred couldn't tell you.
I couldn't tell you honestly, I'll be honest. Synods. Okay, I
thought that was too easy, would answered, I'm sorry. So the normal
functioning of the church from Acts fifteen all the way until three twenty five is
synods, no ecumenical council. We don't have a consistent from the Pope to
every church every five years to know what to believe. So was the Holy
Spirit enough at that time to guide synons without direct letters from the pope,
direct access to the Pope, and without an echemenical council. Well, if
one believe in the Holy Spirit, one would have to say yes. Right.
So, And like I asked the dude earlier about Constantinople one, we
have an entire econmenical council that is called without the Pope, convened without the
pope, closes without the Pope, presided over by a saint who dies out
of commune with the Pope, and the Pope retroactively accepts that council, which
teaches the Trinity a few centuries later. So does this does this look like
a Vatican one style modus operanda? It definitely does not, Right, Jilly.
I don't know if you know about this, but when I was studying
the English sort of like response to these things I discovered and I confirmed it
later going to the same library and looking through thing in the catechism for the
English Catholic Church. I forget what the Plannary Council is or whatever over there.
For the Catholics have been Britain, but in like the eighteen thirties and
forties that you got to think this is important because it's still illegal to be
a Catholic in Britain at this point, Like you can't join the military or
anything at this point and be a Catholic. Like it's it's not it's not
fun. Like. So here's what's interesting. In a catechism section for the
same catechism was put out by the church in England, Okay, there was
a question, you know, they were all question and answer formats. So
the question was is the Pope infallible? And it literally the catechism says no,
this is a spurious process. I'm aware. Yeah, isn't that crazy
that, like you just they just like they just strained, well, I
mean then one decade later they change it. Yeah, I mean, but
Dollinger was. Dolinger was aware of all that, and that's why a Vatican
won. He was still reluctant to sign on to Vatican One until they basically
told Dollinger either except on fame without understanding it, or you're out of the
church. And so he went ahead and signed even though he knew that a
lot of this was a bunch of malooney. Yeah, and that's just to
me again, learning more about my ancestry, just thinking about the kind of
person I am, that's just abhorrent, you know, that is that is
an abhorrent question to make of a sensible man, is to just suspend your
reason and suspend your knowledge and just be like, oh, hey, this
thing that obviously does not make any sense whatsoever, just accepted well to me,
Yeah, to me and my comments on this, And I'm not accusing
you of anything, but my assessment is that most of the time, what
happens in the Roman Catholic world is that there's a kind of a just a
defaulting to worshiping authority. The idea is that the guy in Rome will solve
the questions. Believe in the authority. Your church doesn't have the authority.
We've got all these So it's this worship of authority. And I just don't
believe that Christ established a church where there would be this one guy that we
worship his authority, because that's the only reason I can see for everybody's judgment
being so clouded on these issues and act just acting out the way they act
out. It's big, it's it's it's very true. And it goes again
back to the larp, and it goes again back to like I have to
bring up again Philip Malaight And I don't know what your feon is or if
I'm saying his name right, but ma life. And he points out that
I got a online copy of the Book of Conquered and I was looking through
his arguments on the papers, because I've read Bellerman's arguments on the papec I've
read his whole book on the controversies, I've read I've read Spiritual Authority,
and I've read the positive. So it's interesting to me to say, Okay,
what do you got? So he says straight from scripture in towards the
end of the Book of John, straight up where the apostles are asking like
who is who is to be first over us? All, and he pretty
much gets the famous thing about like let he who would be first be last,
you know, he who would lead, let him serve, you know.
So that was that that was to me was even though it's a Protestant
argue, he gets like, you know, papal authority. That's something I
feel like with maybe a resident with the Orthodox, the idea of like there
is no one apostle the bishop and has supreme authority. I mean in the
question of like the ECU medical debates. If he's right, he's right.
If he's wrong, he's wrong. You know. Just because he's got the
fancy head doesn't mean he's the one that knows everything, you know. It's
just that's that was my like that that's been my like takeaway for the last
couple of days, you know. And again to answer your question about the
authority thing, I have some pretty some pretty deep insight into this because I've
been a fly on the wall for fifteen years in this kind of internet sphere
and I've like seen certain things and been in discords. I mean, I
come from the era of Skype and vent Trillo. That's how old I am,
and and like for me, I can a lot of these guys,
they just have this crazy, insane idea of most of them, like and
I was one of them engaged in this sort of nonsense because of my falacious
understandings of my own ancestry that like, somehow by shilling for the authority,
they're going to grant them some form of power or share it's when in reality,
like, it's just an institution that's trying to protect itself. I had
a friend that asked me recently, He said, why would all these religions,
why would they change their doctrine and talk about like this, Like wouldn't
that just cause you know, like, what's the point. And I just
looked at him and I said, It's it's an institution, man. The
institution protects itself. It's the story of every human government in history is Yeah,
the Roman Gallic church is an institutional self worship entity. That's the point
here. Yeah. The government entity is created to solve a problem. The
government entity manages the problem, and then as it manages the problem, it
begins to become outdated. And so then once it becomes outdated, it starts
to try to protect itself. And then once it's in the pursuit of doing
that it stops fulfilling the purpose for which it was created, and then people
get rid of it, you know. I think that's what I think that's
with the trad thing in the Western world, and and and that's I think
that's the next step for a lot of trad is what the next step for
them is. They're going to formally pretty much most of them pretty much have
and all that weren't I think with the tradcats, at least for the people
that I knew, I think a lot of them are going to either retreat
into a shell because they're not going to know how to cope, or they're
going to silently accept it. But I think the third option is much more
likely if somebody who's charismatic enough just stands up and does it. The next
move for a lot of these guys, a lot of them, for very
shallow reasons, will not consider orthodoxy. For very shallow reasons, they will
not consider it, which I'm going to do. Actually, well, I
think I think that my experience is that a lot of guys are considering it.
A lot of people are not considering it based on shallow things. But
the problem is that I know this from experience going through a lot of the
same stuff, right, because I used to be a tradcat and I would
try to utilize the kind of like all the different copes. But then the
problem, the problem with the low level copes is that it's still churning in
the back of your mind, is still bugging you, and those don't those
don't ultimately satisfy you. And so my guess is that a lot of people
are going to follow the track that I took. And what I did was
I became a romancaloc in two thousand and two two thousand and three. By
the end of two thousand and three, I was already convinced of tried stuff.
I was already going to the Latin mass exclusively, and so I had
a period of recognize and resist. And I think a lot of people are
going to do the exact same sort of bell curve that I did. You're
going to go through the all right, well, I still accept him as
a pope, but he's a liberal, and then you're gonna move to no,
actually he's teaching objective heresy, but he's still a pope, and I
don't have an answer, and then you're gonna move to Okay, he can't
be the pope because he's not right. Heretics denying Vatican One, you're going
to be some kind of like sspx slash stta position. Then you're going to
move into like a pup puckalypticism over in the end times. There's no answer
to this. The only answer is that we got to be in the end
of the world that won't ultimately, you know, stave off the doubts and
whatnot, and then you eventually it's just going to move into all right,
I got to look elsewhere, and that's what happened to me, Like I
got to a certain point where I went through all of these different copes and
different explanations, and then I got to the point where I was no longer
afraid of doubting it. And that happens because in Rome Catholicism, you're very
concerned about, well, if I doubt it, then I'm gonna go to
Hell. I'm damned. I don't want to be damned, you know.
So there's this really entrenched fear. And then but at a certain point you
realize, why does why am I Why would God put me in a position
where I'm com completely fearful of people acting like complete clowns. So in other
words, I'm supposed to accept complete clowns in Rome as authoritative and I'm gonna
be damned because I'm, you know, no longer believing in clown masses and
this ridiculous stuff. And then at a certain point you just break free and
you're like, I'm not I'm not afraid anymore, right, like some some
dumb movie line. Right. But but yeah, that's that's my take on
the the Trek. People will go down the track that I went down.
Now. I'm not trying to be rude, but we're gonna move on.
I appreciate your comments. Those are really good comments there, and feel free
anytime we have this discussion, Ramra to call back in Jordan Snyder. What's
up? Jordan Snyder? I am embracing my nineties guy with the puka shell
necklace. So people were like, why'd you get that? Because I'm in
Florida and I feel like a nineties dude. What's up, dude, I'm
mute and I'm just owning it. Yeah, I'm operating as nineties man.
I own it. Yes, sir, you unmuted? What's up? Now?
You left? Why would you unmute? And then leave. Dude.
Temple hat girl, what's up, Tempole hat girl, she's a former trad
cat. I'm mute. We'll go to Ferry Magdalen. One dollar. Why
don't you finish my angel number? Super chat. It was a little odd,
no offense to you. It was just a weird super chat. Crypto
current Stein twenty dollars. Thank you so much, Crypto curren Stein. Appreciate
that, dude, seriously, three dollars. Talk to Pockets of the future,
Paul. You would rip him a new one, but be kind.
Yeah. I think he has a kind of a new age meditation view.
I have seen his videos over the years. I don't know if he would
want to chat with me, but I'm always open to chatting with all kinds
of different positions. It doesn't matter to me. Orthodox Crow at ten dollars,
Can you explain to me how Ryan Gosling was the Grand Mofti of Jerusalem?
Exactly? This British intelligence created post where the Brits were playing both sides
of this issue with tiny mustache man, and everybody was laughing because when I
looked him up, I was like, wait a minute, that's freaking Ryan
Gosling was a British spy double dealing with the Brits and the yeah, I
mean, legit, Brian Gosling, tell me it's not. That's the the
grand moved to Jerusalem British intelligence agent. Literally, we need some of the
weirdo you agers to like to say that this proves reincarnation, right, because
I mean he's really looking like some Gosling right there. I mean that's some
Really, that's some. That's like eighty eighty to five percent Gosling right there.
Oh my Gosling. What's up, Temple haggirl, I'm mute? Where
you at? I yes, ma'am. I just wanted to kind of touch
back on what the previous gentleman was saying. When you grow up in the
system with Roman Catholicism, like having grown up with that, it really is
very difficult system to get out of. First of all, like there's there's
a there's a family connection because like my mom my mom has like the Irish
groups, my dad has the Polish roots that were very right. And then
you have like I went through twelve years of Catholic school. So if you
speak out against that in any way, rape or formed, like you are
going to help particularly because my parents they still are extremely devout Roman Catholics.
Now, I mean there's there's some run flags that are definitely going on,
but I mean growing up going through school, Like for example, I had
lesbian women teaching me when I was in grade school. I had the FBI
come in store my high school to pull out the priest that was teaching me
because he got picked picked up for a child pornography we had sorry we're on
YouTube, so sorry sorry. So I had several So I had several instances
where these types of situations were coming. So it's like it's like, okay,
so I'm supposed to believe that this guy here in Rome is like telling
us that all this stuff is okay and he's allowing us to go on.
But yet like this is what I'm seeing and then yeah, it's like it's
it's just like this this crazy thing and then you try to speak out against
it, and I just I just think that like it's become so someone to
a part of the Western philosophy. And also like the like the Majestic in
the Magic, like if you go on to like any of the dragcat Any
trip pages like Obsession with Fatima and these miracles and Garbadal and I know I
was, I was in the track out world and then I finally realized that,
you know, this Fatima stuff is just ridiculous over the top, like
it's the retreat when when the school, the dogma and the scholasticism and the
rationality fails, the retreat is into that that's the next move that you go
to. It's just extreme nsticism. And I talked to my mom about that,
and I'm like, your view of Mary is ridiculous, Like that's that's
craziness, Like it's completely wrong. You you put her up there like past
Christ. They put her up about Christ in a lot of a lot of
instances, and I think that was a response to the Protestant and like the
Protestant. Yeah, even even EMJ says that the medieval Christ as judge image
got uh too heavy and then the reaction was to swing over to marry the
merciful mother. And so that there's this like and that he em J.
I think he says he thinks that influence it's like Ireland to be feminist or
to be prepped for feminism. So even he admits a lot of which is
odd to me. But he admits a lot of this stuff too. It's
just so crazy. And then like they're the reasoning that like the rosary is
going to pull them out of anything that the Pope does, so anytime the
Pope does something, they need to pray harder on the rotary. It's just
it's crazy because like I saw, like right after all that stuff came out
with the Pope and all of his stuff about Skittles things, they were they
were just like doubling down on we need to have more provincials. We need
to have more, we need we need to consult. Yeah, it's your
fault. It's actually your fault because you didn't do enough rosaries. So,
by the way, so uh, this came out a few days ago,
and I want everybody to be aware of this because it it really kind of
hammers the point home. The New Jerome Bible Commentary came out and it's got
all these kind of super lib weirdos as the editors. But Francis pins the
four to it and gives it nil obstat which means free from error. So
even though this might not be quote magisterium, it's Francis pushing and giving his
approval. Remember this is in the situation of Honorius. This is going beyond
what Honorius did. Honorius wrote a letter that affirms monothelitism and he ends up
condemned for that. This is Francis going about twelve light years beyond that with
approving this Jerome Bible commentary as they call it, which is again just a
bunch of like skittle stuff literally saying that the Bible is like not against the
skittles, and could you believe it the guys like other Paul actually made it
into this article with James White, right, so the Protestants are jumping on
this right as if this is like look at this guy, yikes, whose
days the KGB. That's all the other say it's the KGB. It's crazy,
Like they don't realize there's there's no there is no KGB quit existing thirty
years ago. I know that, but they just they always say, like
even here some clayers say that, like it's the KGB. It's like,
no, it's not. Stop spiritually deceiving people. That's ridiculous. It's craziness.
And people actually believe it, like they believe it, like they read
these like Saint Carola mofy Ma exist. But they read these books and you'll
hear from like like my mom's friends in the Churchill, yeah, it's the
KGB that's doing Is this the reason that thinks that Francis is doing all things
that he's doing. And I'm just like, I just like, okay,
but I mean, the KGB is not supposed to be the KGB is not
supposed to be able to thwart Rome by a Vatican I mean Vatican one,
right, Vatican one doesn't give any place for like like the KGB clause right,
like all this applies to Rome unless there was the KGB subverting Rome,
which again there's no KGB. So if we wanted to say, what it's
Russian intelligence, I mean, do you think that Putin and Russian intelligence are
supporting the stuff that do Francis is openly supporting it. I mean, is
Francis and the KGB what are you talking about? It's like, if you're
if the if the objectives of the w are the same as your church,
then I think you need to look for another correct like like the And I
think if my parents are starting to wake up to it, and I think
some people are, they're either just just completely dropping out of the church.
You know, it'd be nice that they came over to Orthodoxy, but I
think there's a lot of people that are just recognizing that. Particularly my siblings,
they're just kind of like agnostic right now where they don't really want to,
like they're not eager to jump into something because they've grown up into this
like ridiculous system where they're just kind of like nodding their head, just like
backing away slowly because they see it. James White looks like a like a
like a like a dull eyed version of John Malkovich right there. I feel
like, I feel like Cyrus the virus is going to start talking right there,
Cyrus the virus. Uh, if you're remember con Air, doesn't he
looked like John Malcolvich and con error there and that if you see the pictures.
But the Bible says, quoting the Jerome Bible commentary approved by Francis,
the Bible does not talk about same skittles as it does today, so the
modern concept was not known at that time. Totally not true. The forward
as Francis granting a noil opstat in an impor moder, which, according to
the imprint, declares it is free from doctrinal error. James White condemned the
book in his YouTube video. This has nothing to do with exegesis. It
is woke propaganda. Mocking the magistarian for endorsing this commentary. In his video,
James White asked if there was a consistency in Francis supporting this. Now
we know we already covered what Francis said about his responses to the Dubia and
his responses to the Dubia, Francis said that skittles unions are not exactly the
same tier as heterosexual unions, but they're analogous and in some cases they can
be black. And so again this is all out in the open, and
it's time to you know, it's time to just be honest about this.
I appreciate Tim because he's being honest about it. Tim admits that that it
was entered into the the changes are entered into the ACTA apostolical say that not
the changes about skittles, but the change is about divorce and remarried communion.
It's also, i would argue, it's also changed in terms of death penalty.
Uh. And then this article here correctly admits that all this is connected
to the push for the female female dac in it, which is a preparation
for female priests, which is a preparation for feminizing the entire entity. So
that's the ultimate goal of all this, which is which is absolutely correct.
I'm not a huge fan of church militant, but this article is correct anyway.
So anything else what you want to say, timfole No, I just
think the ultimate goal is set will probably be the female well. And remember
that's what Fourham one to push on the Orthodox as well, So Fordham is
kind of in the background pushing this for the Roman Catholics and for the Orthodox
Temple Hacker, what would you say to Roman Catholics that are because you're a
former trad cat and what would you say to them hearing you say this,
I don't just to go with your gut. I mean, if you feel
like something is really wrong and you feel like like like when you when you
see these like just complete like just contradictions and everything, just go with your
gut, like, don't allow yourself to be spiritually deceived, because there's a
lot of spiritual like it's spirit like as you were saying, Jay, it's
spiritually damaging and spiritual used to be in the Catholic church, it's spiritual,
just like just deception. Go someplace that I can provide you some healing.
And when I went to Orthodox, that's what I got was healing. Appreciate
that, good question or good comments. There a bunch of more people hopped
up in here. I don't know if I got enough energy for all these.
We got a bunch of people in here, maybe one or two more
crazy Protestant. What's up? That sounds like this is gonna be rough?
Crazy Protestant? What's good? Man? Are you crazy? Yeah? Okay,
what's your comment? So I have some questions for you, okay about
Orthodox ecclesiology. Yeah, I want to know what makes the church the church?
Like we all have to preach the same thing, or we have to
agree in everything about doctrine. But let's say it's caaedological views or the antime's
all of that, Well, I would say, yeah, I mean,
there is a basic outline of what you can and can't believe, right,
So there is areas where people can disagree. But for example on the end
times, like you can't believe in premillennialism because that's excluded by constantinople one.
Oh okay, okay, okay, But that's my question because I see the
early Church and I don't see them as say, united grouping doctrines in the
end times. Well hold on on, Paul says, one Lord, one
faith, one baptism, so they are united on one faily. But just
a martyr said, you know, there's people that don't believe in this,
which I think it was pre millennialist. He said, these people are orthodoxis
still yeah, we don't believe in the same thing. But hold on.
So that this came up earlier, and that's this. This relates to what
I was saying about, like when there's periods of debate, certain views might
be tolerated until there's a council that says, okay, we can't do that.
This is the right position, that's the wrong position. So councils help
decide between those debated issues. Yeah, I'm aware there was sentence around three
hundred years, but there was NOI communical council, you know that let's say,
oh, yeah, we all believe in this thing and nobody can't say
anything else. Well, no, some of the did so. Like no,
some of the pre nice Seene synods do say that, like the synods
of Carthage and the synod of either Ankira or Gangra. They do they say
what you can and can't believe. I mean, I think I read the
Senator of Carthage and about their canon of a Scripture, and that's the other
church. Hold on, there's a bunch of canons of synods of Carthage.
So what I'm saying is if you look up, I always get a Gangra
and then Kira mixed up. But so one of the first councils is yeah,
I think I heard you. So this is prior to okay, so
hold on. So here's so here's hold on. So here's Carthage in two
fifty seven under Cyprian, and it has canons about what you can and can't
believe. Right, So that that council is talking about baptism and it teaches
baptismal regeneration. By the way, here is the Council of Ankira in three
fourteen, which is a local synod, and it talks about the Eucharist.
It talks about deacons and bishops, it talks about heretics, It talks about
all kinds of stuff you can and can't believe. So what do you mean
what you said? You said that these early councils don't talk about what you
can and can't believe. That isn't I mean when I said about when I
said about the councils was that every single church had a different opinion on things.
But by eximple this, I think there's this church called they didn't They
didn't have differences on everything. They might have differed on some things, sure,
yeah, but that but that wouldn't mean that there's no common faith.
I mean, it didn't seem like they had a common faith though, even
I think Origin said hold on, so that's not true. I mean when
they when there was already early creeds and confessions before Nicio. So what do
you mean they didn't have a common faith? You say confessions like, yeah,
so they all uh, let's say for example, they can let me
give an example. They confessed belief in things like baptismal regeneration. They confessed
belief in things like the Eucharists. They confessed belief in the deity of Christ,
the Apostolic succession. That's always there. Yeah, but I'm saying I'm
not saying they didn't agree on the basic things. I'm saying they didn't agree.
Like I told you, like it's choological views. Like I told you
pre millennials, and yeah, I think church, but they were hold on
they were and so they allowed differences until the synods settled issue. That's what
I'm saying. Mm hmm. But you said, I mean if we all
don't preach the same thing, who we That's what the Arthook Church says.
But we are the unchanged church. We never changed, We've always been the
same. And like I said, like i've seen church fathers preaching different things.
Yeah, but that's not what That doesn't mean that everybody in every era
had every single point the same. The point is that there is there are
basics, and there are things that are not basics, and you can have
disagreements on things that are not basics. I mean, I think pre like
chiological views are pretty basic because some can lead into heresy and that's true.
You know, well that's what you think. But I mean, if it's
not determined until the first Council Constantinople in three eighty one, so like you
think there shouldn't be like, there shouldn't be we shouldn't cut some slack.
I mean, in my opinion is like Protestants, so we don't even got
consoles though, you know what I mean. So it's like that a problem
to you, not to me. No, it's not. It's not a
problem for me because you're you're importing to what I believe, a position I
don't hold. So when I say that there's one Lord, one faith,
one baptism, that doesn't mean one faith in every single bit of minutia.
There's going to be debates and divisions and schisms in the history of the Church.
So and by the way, you're very argument about eschatology, not that
it is a fundamental issue that would undercut your own position because Protestants are completely
divided on eschatology. Yeah, I mean that's what that's my point. So
there's not one. So there's not So there's not a consistent faith. Mean
for me, it is because I mean for you, we're talking about what's
what's the case, and we're not worried about what's subjective, which what for
from for history. I mean for me, I don't have the same position
as let's say we all got to push the same thing in the end times,
because what I've seen in the other church is that different thinks. Even
Apostolic fathers who actually the traditioned. Yeah, but I never said so.
Your argument is your argument is based on the idea that the church fathers are
infallible in an error and I don't believe that. Oh well that's not my
position either. So where is the inconsistency. The inconsistency is that you said,
like your decision, do you having different opinions on doctrines makes a church
fallse And it's no, It depends on what It depends on what the doctrine
is. So there there are there are things that are fundamental, like,
for example, the Nicing Creed, those are fundamentals. Right, So if
you disagree with something in the Nicing Creed, right, but when the when
I see it happened, they didn't. That didn't have the added statement of
constantinople about eschatology, right, do you understand what I'm saying or not?
So? Content to Number one is the Second Council. It adds the phrase
whose kingdom will have no end? That phrase was added to exclude pre millennialism.
So what I'm saying is that you can have people who thought pre millennialism
was an opinion in the church that you could have until constant and noble one
when it excludes it. That's different from saying something like there is no return
of Christ. Right, that's an obvious heresy. Yeah, yeah, all
right, that's all the Christians I had. Yeah, those are good questions.
Fair enough, the desperate void. What's up dude. By the way,
if you want to support us, you can do so via super chess
through the stream labs function. You stream labs to do superchess justice, Buyork
ten dollars. Justice Byork. Interesting, was not literally a curse. He
was counted as such. How is this different than the nominalism move that Luther
makes regarding justification? My question makes sense. Yes, I do understand your
question. It is a good question. So Luther's nominalist move is not saying
that Christ wasn't cursed. So two different uses of the words there, right,
our position is not nominalist. Okay, So let's be clear about what
nominalism. Nominalism is a late Medieval Medieval to late medieval movement from Gabriel William
of Oakham and Gabriel Bile. Gabriel Bile influences Luther to be able to divorce
the ontological reality of a term or a status or a thing from the word,
So Luther says, I can call people just when they are in fact
wicked, because God calls people just when they are in fact wicked. The
ancient and medieval world did not separate the term from the reality, so they
were not nominalists. They were realist or moderate realists. Right realism be more
platonic, Modern realism be more what I would argue as our position. And
so for example, Christ assuming universal human nature, that requires some kind of
moderate realism. You can't be a nominalist and believe in correct Christology because Christ
assumed universal human nature, so you need universals. Nominalism is based on the
idea there are no real universals. So in the case of Luther, Luther's
move this nominalist is to say that God can divorce his naming of things or
calling things just from their actual status and why because of nominalism. And it's
more than just nominalism. Luther also believes in a kind of occasionalism where God
literally can just will it to be. So, so when he's asked about
the omnipresence of Christ's humanity, Luther says, God just wills it to be
that way. How is it possible that it's bred and wine and body of
Christ. God just wills it to be so, So there's a kind of
theological voluntarism that goes along with the nominalism in Luther. The Orthodox view in
saying that Christ is a curse by appropriation, is not an affirmation of nominalism.
It's just affirming the way that we understand the linguistic use. And because
we don't believe that curses can be ontologically real, that's not a question of
nominalism. That's a question of Manicheanism. Evil, sin, curse, they
don't have ontological existence. Okay, it's not a thing doesn't have being.
Sin and evil don't have being. Sin and evil are privations and the move
of the will away from the good. That's all that a sin is in
the Church Fathers, and that's always to avoid Manicheanism, because God said when
he created the world, it is good. So nothing that has being can
be good be evil. Even Satan in his nature is still good because God
created his nature. He's bent and conformed his will to evil, but even
his will itself is still good, but he always uses it for evil.
So any position that wants to argue that evil takes on onto logical reality or
curse or whatever is making a Manichean move, and by the way, Luther
actually makes that move. So that's how Luther's position is not the same thing
as John Damascus saying Christ is a curse by appropriation. Dan Mullder three dollars.
Here's a question, have you. I haven't been able to talk to
Father James Bernstein. I have his book and he's sent me a few messages.
But he is ethnically Jewish and he works to make Orthodox people become Orthodox.
Yes, I'm aware, how should they approach customs that they grew up
with, like Shabbat and Holy days family? That's a question for him.
I don't know. It's a question for your spiritual father like, and that's
true not just for this issue with Jews, but with anybody. I don't
tell people like what they should do with their family relations. It's not appropriate
for me. I'm not an Orthodox spiritual advisor. I view myself as a
philosopher. I talk about the issues in terms of academics, philosophy, argumentation.
I don't typically give spiritual advice. So that would be a question you
would take to whoever will be your spiritual father, because a lot of that
stuff requires wisdom and nuanced navigating where that person's at. You know, are
they a cademic human? Have they converted? You know? Are they serious
about it? You know, it's a complex question that I don't give advice
to people about, but thank you for that. Vendova, young liege one
dollar. Do you have a date for blotting out Tim Gordon? I don't
know what you mean. Why would I blot out Tim Gordon? I like,
Tim Gordon? Have you gotten any progress of PbD. I've sent two
emails and I asked Sammy to kind of put my name in there, but
I haven't heard anything back from any of the PbD people, so I don't.
I don't hold out. I'm not holding my breath for any of that.
I mean, if if they would ask me to be on, I
would, but I don't know. Tell Jamie that dogs, all dogs go
to Hell. I already tell her that to mess with her, right,
because she thinks all dogs go to heaven. I'm like, no, they
all go to Hell, dude, And she's like no, So you I
beat you to that one. Abraham of Aksum, I'm you all right?
He can't connect Uh, brothers SID, who was in the chat. Since
you came all the way over here, I'll bring you on. Since you
were chatting up a fuss today in the chat? What's up Sid? Brother
Sid's sister Moon Sid can't connect? All that chatting? And you get over
here and you can't connect all that chatting? What did it do? It
exposed your dial up connection? You can't you can't connect where you at?
Said you were talking smack all night with your evangelical thing and now you can't
connect, big gun. What's up? Yep? Yes, sir? Good?
Uh, yeah, yeah, just ask some questions about orthodox Okay,
are you what's wrong with your mic? Dude? What's wrong with your mic?
Man? What kind of phone are you on? Uh? Pretty crappy
one? Are you on a Zach Morris level? All right, I'm sorry.
We can't do this. I can't. This is just that's that's like
the worst quality phone I've ever heard of. That's Zach Morris level. Calling
in from nineteen ninety three, Riley Marsinka's what's up? Hello, Yes,
sir, I got a couple of questions for you. I'm a Protestant that
is interested in Orthodoxy. I had a question about the monarchy of the father
throughout the five theological oorations. So I know that he's or I know that
the son is equal in the sun hemisphere, equal in essence of nature.
But as far as Jesus or the son submitting to the Father, is that
something that he just does in his human nature or is that also a part
of his divine nature? Well as the divine person of the son generated from
the Father, he does everything the father wills. So I guess you could
you could say there's a kind of a submitting there because he is the son
of the Father. But it's also the case that everything that the father has
he gives to the son, so that any notion of submission is not any
kind of ontological diminution, got it. I mean, he does say in
the Garden, as the person of the son, that he wants to do
the father's will. And if you read Maximus on that section let this cup
pass for me, that actually becomes the locus of the debate between him and
Peris, and Maximus says that the son delivers up the human will in submission
to the father. So it is appropriate to the human will, but also
the son, because he shares the same will as the Father. Always does
what the Father wills, and he's sent by the Father. So in that
sense, you could says, he submits to the Father. Gotcha, Okay,
that makes sense. So I listened to a little bit of the Mass
and the Father and an iced debate, and something that was said was that
the Bible isn't the only word of God. So I guess I'm curious about
what else is considered infaul Like the councils would be considered infallible, right,
Well, the councils, yeah, would be dogmatically infallible, but I wouldn't
equate that to the Word of God per se, because the Word of God
would be the totaltality of the divine revelation that the Apostles handed down. So
that would be everything that the Apostles taught, whether written or oral, and
so that's a definitive body of teaching that doesn't change, doesn't evolve. It's
the faith once for all committed to the Apostles, like Jude says, right,
contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. So there's
not new divine revelations from God that when John died, that's done there's no
more public revelation, but the church can accurately and correctly express and comment and
state what that apostolic deposit is, and that's what the councils do. Okay,
So yes, I mean like obviously the Catholics sale of the pope is
has all the nfaibl like scathedral stuff, so right, but even they admit
that it's not new divine revelation. I mean, you could argue that they
violate that, but in principle they believe what I just said. Okay,
are synods kind of like where where do they line up on that? What
they also be considered available or no? Well, I mean it depends because
there's no and this is true for everybody. There's no like one size fits
all recognition principle for what constitutes an ecumenical council. And that's why it's kind
of on a it's kind of on a scale or a spectrum, because the
Palamite Synods were received eventually by the whole Orthodox Church, and so you could
say that they have that same status. So in other words, a pan
Orthodox synod or a Palamite synod, which is not an quote ecumenical council it's
still authoritative for the Orthodox Church because it's been accepted throughout the whole Orthodox world.
So likewise, even local councils and their canons can be authoritative, and
they can have say in the church even outside of their local jurisdictions. So
for example, the councils of Carthage were local councils, but they eventually received
in some of not all of them, but the ones for example about the
Canada Scripture, they're accepted by the sixth and seventh Council. So if it's
accepted eventually finally by the Seventh Council, even a local synod can be of
authority. And I think one principle to remember here a lot of times Protestants
and Roman Catholics, they're always like, give me the list of the things
that I have to believe, and then things that I don't. I want
the infallible list, and then I want the fallible list. And in Orthodoxy,
there isn't this thing. There is no easy answer to this question,
and we would argue that anybody that thinks they have it is diluted. And
we would argue that practice of the Roman Catholic Church claiming to have that has
actually completely fallen apart and undermined itself because it doesn't actually possess this because it's
a it's a it's a it's a selling point that doesn't actually exist. So
there's dogmatic teachings and councils right from the from the Orthodox ecumenical councils. Yes,
but there's also councils that aren't quote ecumenical councils once the ecumena is gone,
that are still authoritative and that we've still looked to, even if they're
local synods like the Confession of Peter Mohila or you know, Synative Yase.
You know, these different Orthodox synods have been received and accepted and they have
authority even if they're not quote ecumenical councils. And that's because it's not just
a question of what's infallible or fallible in the Orthodox world. It's a totally
different ecclesiology, and everybody is normally governed by local synods. So your local
bishop is not infallible, but he still has authority. So it's absolutely wrong
to juxtapose authority and infallibility. And everybody's looking for where's the one infallible thing?
The guy or the list that I have to submit to, And I'm
saying it doesn't work like that because in the Orthodox Church, it's functioning like
the Church always functioned, which is through synodal governance synods, and so even
though your local synod is not infallible, it still has authority. So that
it's the whole the whole mindset is wrong, is what I'm trying to say.
Okay, Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I've kind of
been been back and forth with my dad a little bit. He's a conservative,
Pentecostal and dispensationally, so the conversations have been interesting. But like the
passage about binding and loosing, is that something that would be applied to bishops
or to those synods and that kind of stuff, or yeah, sure,
I mean the local bishop can excommunicate somebody, right, Okay, so that's
binding. And when the priest, when you confess your sins and you get
absolution, he's doing that as the as the helper to the bishop got So
that's binding and losing. Yeah, So like that's something that I'm like,
how in the world is the Protestant world kind of have any concept of of
binding and loosing? When there's no kind of Norman authority like that. Yeah,
exactly. They just say it's preaching the gospel, that's money and lucy.
But Jesus breathed on them and said, whoever sends you remit who they're
remitted, or ever sends you retain, they're retained. That there's not nothing
like Protestantism right there, right right? Something else to kind of do with
My dad was always talking about the rapture and stuff about the caught up to
meet him in the air kind of thing. Is there anything that you would
say kind of yeah, it's just talking about the second Coming. It's not
talking about a pre tribulation rapture. Right, Okay, just one more thing
like you I've heard you mentioned before that these topics take a lot of time
to really work through, and of course that's true. I mean, I'm
twenty two, So how how do I how do I know if if I'm
considering Orthodoxy that I'm not just kind of persuaded by the first thing I hear,
Like, how do I have confidence and whether I should convert or not
if I haven't spent decades learning? Well, the good thing about most Orthodox
churches is that you take a long time to learn it. So it's not
like the Bautist church that you go and walk on the all and you join
it. You spend one to three years typically doing catechises. So and that's
that's that's after you're an inquirer. So you might choose, and I would
recommend taking your time. I do not tell people to rush in Orthodoxy,
take your time. You don't want to make a rash decision. You'd also
don't want to join a church that you later find out might be more liberal
than your taste. So take your time, don't rush. You're going to
be an inquirer for a period of time, make that as long as you
feel necessary, and then you become a catechumen and that's one to three years
typically maybe six months depends. Okay, So there's no there's no rush.
That's helpful. I don't know. I'm sure this is kind of dependents on
the specific perish and stuff too, But like the vespers, degree vespers and
daily vespers, is that something that I should be going to or or divine
liturgy or yeah, go to all of them, okay, I mean as
much as you want to, Okay, cool, Yeah, I think that's
that's basically all I had. I appreciate it absolutely good. Questions are we
going for four hours? I don't have any more energy, so apologize to
anybody who wanted to keep going. But I want to remind you that the
show sponsor is chalk dot Com. Head on over to chalk dot com and
check out the new product we have, which is chad Mode. I went
to the gym today and I didn't have my chad Mode and I pulled something
in my back at the gym, and I feel like if I had had
chad Mode, I might not have pulled the muscle that I pulled. Because
that is an amazing pre workout that they've created over there. Utilizes blue spirillina
extract, so it's no nasty chemicals, it's all. It's organic lemon cherry
maple. That's it, maple crystals. There's no synthetic caffeine. It does
have the equivalence of one cup of coffee and it's a great new product that
they have over there. Now, you don't just get twenty percent off,
You actually get fifty percent off if you use a promo code J fifty over
at chalk dot com and be sure to not just check out the pre workout
chad Mode check out also all the other amazing products like the Male Vitality Stack
where you can get the Tonkatale which boost testosterone, the Daily seven but the
Daily which is also great for boosting testascerone. You don't get that twenty five
percent off, you want the fifty percent off with Jay five zero J fifty.
You also get astral gond to there. And for the ladies, there
is also the Female Vitality Stack which ladies can also take testosterone if they want
to energize themselves in certain ways. Irish Moss great for balancing out hormones,
moot issues. She legit great for mental focus and clarity. Ladies, guys,
head on over to check chalk dot com. Use it. I'm gonna
go Jay fifty this Jay five zero to get fifty percent off. You can
also subscribe to my channel and to all of my outlets and to my rock
fin where our buddy Richard Grove is over there working on his new course.
I know he's a couple episodes in and I think we sold at least one
of the Richard courses. Richard is live right now because it's Sunday night and
I want to remind you that every Sunday they do Grant Theft World, which
is an amazing seven hour podcast going into deep, deep geopolitical study and awareness,
much like what you see me going into. So there's the link right
there to follow Richard, I highly recommend getting on over to rock Fin subscribe
me not just to Richard, but also to me. Over on Rockfin.
You can also get my philosophy course, which is twelve lectures thirty plus hours
of the history of Western philosophy, beginning with the Presocratics and working ourselves all
the way up to Postmodernism, Nietzsche, post minds. So there is the
link to my philosophy course if you want access to that, and of course
all the great lectures and podcasts at Jays Analysis and at Rockfinn and uh.
I think that's everything. Everybody, have a good night, Thanks Jack,
thank you,