Speaker 1: We already see this cultural popular rhetoric of trying to
equate now the Abrahamic faiths. We're seeing it through the institutions,
and of course Pope Francis is sort of the headworking
face of this on the Christian side, Abrahamic house of faith.
How this fits into all this stuff? And then we
can backtrack back into the funding and so we're seeing
the endpoint of something that's been pushed for well over
one hundred years.
Speaker 2: And so while it's true that we might be able
to accept the ritual that went on in another church,
right there can be the acceptance of this or that
ritual that was done in a certain way. We don't
make a judgment that they were necessarily therefore received into
the mystical body. We don't know that the hell.
Speaker 1: I want to dive into the ecumenism and the problems
with this, and you know, to start with, where do
you see this problem sort of emerging? Ecumenicism is obviously
historically associated with Christianity, but you could point towards the
Renaissance with the priscal theologia and the perennialism and stuff
like that. But maybe just to open up for people,
what is ecumenism, And how does this develop into because
I assume we're eventually going to get into some of
the major foundations that funded this stuff. How does it
lead up to that point?
Speaker 2: Yeah, great question. So the origins are not anything nefarious. Right.
The term itself acumenae is where we get the same
terminology for ecumenical councils. Right. So a lot of people
might be confused thinking that the modern ecumenist movement is
synonymous with the ecumenical councils, and that is not the case.
So there's a big difference between the attitude of the church,
say in the first thousand years, when there's an ecumenical
council called with the purpose of reconciling every every body,
which is done with the presupposition that somebody is going
to come back to the truth. Right, somebody's right and
somebody's wrong. Right. For example, in the Council of Nicea,
we don't just try to find a middle position between
arianism and the dety of Christ. Right. It's not this
project of just always trying to find the happy medium.
It's a question of the ecumenism of return, as it's
eventually called in the modern era, and that's the acumenism
that gets rejected. So if we understand that the origins
of it come out of, as we said, the notion
of the ocumenity of the Universal Church. Nothing wrong with that,
nothing malicious, nothing problematic about that. But where we start
to see this verging into something else is I think
you're right to point to actually papalism. So the origins
of the cumunist movement, where we subordinate the theological truths
to geopolitical truths, papalism you know, as the you know,
unifying factor in all Christianity something like that, which I
would say is largely a kind of a geopolitical focus.
So that that's where we start to see it, and
it starts to emerge. As you know, we get a
revolution of the church in the eleventh century to the
during the Gregorian Reforms, where papalism takes on a new
level far beyond what anybody had seen before. And even
Eastern Catholic theologians admit that the Roman Catholic Eastern Uniates
admit that the eleventh centuries where we really starts to
see the Gregorian revolution, and so that revolution in the
church paves the way for the Western Latin Church to
engage in quite a few revolutions, one of which is
that Renaissance period that you're talking about, which I know
you know about because you talked about it when I
did an event. You know, that period where we have
a lot of neoplatonic magic coming to the fore, especially
people like Agrippa, and people don't randolah these figures, right,
they have a new approach to what you call, right
the PRIs cathological which wi is a form of perennialism
where now all of the religions are kind of just
instantiations of a higher you know, supra religion, right, And
the goal of this particular religions is ultimately to maybe
conform to or eventually converge in some kind of universal religion.
And some of those Renaissance figures did write about the
possibility of some you know, future new religion. I've been
reading through the book that came out from Cambridge about
the Byzantine figure of Plethon. It was to modern Cumunism,
and Plethon was a Platonic pagan name was a Platonic
pagan who said who wanted to revive the Platonic tradition
in in Byzantum which had been shut down. So from
the time of Justin Saint Justinian up until the later
stages of Byzantium you had an attempt to persecute and
the pushing of Neoplatonism in all of its forms kind
of underground. And then you see resurgence once Byzantium falls,
and in that tradition of the prisca theological of the will,
what will become modern ecumenism continues on in various secret
societies and various groups. So I'm not trying to equate
all the humanism with a secret society, you know what
I'm saying. There are ideological predecessors which you've hinted at,
that are definitely there. So long story short, coming up
to the modern era, even the Roman Catholic Church, ironically,
with various papal encyclicals, was very anti ecumenist all the
way up until the last anti acumunist statement by Pious
the eleventh and is famous in cyclical Mortalium Animals in
nineteen twenty eight. So even the papacy, which we might
think at different times in history, has had this vent
towards a false ecumenism, a false union. For example, the
Council of Florence is a false union. When we get
to the modern period, the Roman Church is totally opposed
to it because they saw it ironically as a Protestant movement,
and it's Protestant because because we could probably trace what
we know of today as the Acumunist movement to the
Anglican branch theory, and the Anglican branch theory is an
older Anglican theory to ecclesiology, which says, well, we're not
full on Calvinist Protestants or you know, Congregationalists. We do
believe there should be a hierarchy. We should have a
concern for the seven ecumenical councils of this kind of thing.
I'm saying, the more high church Anglican right, the traditional
Anglican view. But they said, we don't want to go
with the Roman Catholic view of the church, and we
don't want an Orthodox view. We got to have we
had to have a new theory, and so the Anglicans
developed what they call branch theory, which is the idea
that the Church exists amongst these various branches. There's the
Protestant branch. Anglican branch is the best I guess of
the Protestants, there's the Orthodox branch, and there's the Roman
Catholic branch, and then I guess the Oriental Orthodox that
all branches out into different churches which are still in
some way part of the one universal Catholic Church. That is,
of course, obviously not the Orthodox view. We have to
reject branch theory, and traditional Roman Catholicism also is supposed
to reject branch theory as well. But there's a change
after the Mortalium Animals of nineteen twenty eight, and there's
also a change not everyone in Orthodoxy, but there begins
to be Anglican Orthodox dialogues amongst the Greeks. I think
in the eighteen nineties. I read several books on this
many years ago, and then there was some meetings between
Anglicans and Orthodox and a few other places, And I
wouldn't even call those necessarily malicious, because it really depends
on what the purpose or the attitude of the meetings is.
There's nothing wrong with academic conferences, there's nothing wrong with
people getting together discussing their ideas. The problem, I think
comes when we get into the nineteen thirties, forties, fifties
and sixties where acumenism really begins to be co opted
in part of a geopolitical movement by very wealthy and
powerful people to buy their own admission steer Christianity into
a direction that they want to go in. So it's
not really until we and then we that's when we
start to see these entities like the National Council of Churches,
the World Council of Churches, which really become the focus
of ecumenical activities, as well as other entities too, and
they're connected to the United Nations and these kinds of things.
And again, initially, even the Roman Calloity Church all the
way up until nineteen twenties totally condemns us. It says
it's a heterodox mini Orthodox clergy, especially at that time,
still condemned it. But you have this gradual warming up.
And I'll end with this part, which is just the
main error is an ecclesiological error. And it's an ecclesiological
error because it's an historian type of Christology, which if
we think about Nestorianism and Christology, you have the two
natures of Christ in the hypothetic union, right, we have
a single divine person with a human nature. The divine
person possesses the divine nature and a human nature, but
he's not a human person. And so that perfect heypathetic
union means that the mode in which God's presence in
the incarnate Christ is there is different than the mode
of his presence everywhere else. Right, So it doesn't mean
that he's not omnipresent. Right when we think about Christ
walking around in Jerusalem, Right, is it still true that
Christ is omnipresent? Is he in China? Sure, because he's
on the present, But what makes it his presence unique
when he's walking around incarnate over there in Jerusalem. Well,
what makes him unique is that the mode of his
presence is as the incarnate Son. There's a unique presence
of him over there, and the same we get that
with the Theophanes and with you know, the presence of
the Ames of the Lord in the Old Testament. These
theophanies show that while God is on the present, there's
also a unique sense in which he can be present
at a specific place in a specific time. Right, And
that crystological basis is what informs our ecclesiology. So we
can't have an ecclesiology divorced from Christology because the Church
is the body of Christ. Therefore, whatever is true of
Christology in terms of Christ being a theanthropic being, the
god Man, must also be the case for the mystical
body of the Church. And the mystical body of the
Church is not split, divided, or amongst thousands of different sects.
So that's why we have to understand that modern e
humanism is an ecclesiological heresy because it does what an
historian does. It does for the Church what an Astorianism
does for Christology, which is that it says that the
divine presence is actually divided from the visible bodily presence. Right,
he split into a division there, because yeah, Christ might
be in some special way in the Orthodox Church, but
he's also present everywhere. And the argument is always, well,
don't you think the Holy Spirit is everywhere present? Yeah,
but that's not the argument. The argument is not about
his omnipresence. The argument is about his unique presence in
his mystical body, which is the Church. And it cannot
be a thousand of whole says there's one holy Catholic
Apostolic Church, right right, one body. It's well, the creed
says that following what's in Ephesians and other tom And
one last thing I'll say is that that does not
mean as everybody sort of assumes that I'm saying, Oh,
I'm damning everyone else. I don't know people's individual destinies.
We're not told that. God, I think, in his wisdom
doesn't give us because how bad are we at judging
these kinds of right, I don't know people's ultimate destinies.
And I think many church fathers, if you look at
the tradition of you know, baptism, desire baptism of blood.
The Church has always accounted them amongst the saints, and
so that means that people can be united to the
Church in unique ways that are known only to God,
such as the thief on the cross. Right, I think
it's entirely possible that Christ can unite people to Him
that have not gone through the normative means of baptism
and reception of the Church. Right, so Christ can make
up for what the Church fails to do. But we
don't compromise the doctrine of the body. Because of that,
we have to have both of these things in tandem.
And in atth Lasting there's actually a section where Saint
Maximus talks about this is really good. I think it's
I'm going from memory here, but it might be thirteen
or twenty three somewhere in there. It's the response to
it's ad the lasting on the Holy Spirit and his
presence in the world, because the Ecumenists will always argue that, well,
the Holy Spirit's present everywhere, but that's not the argument.
The argument is not is he on the present? The
argument is is the redemptive divinization work of the Holy
Spirit present everywhere? Or is it only present in the
mystical body? And say Maximus argues that the mode of
the Holy Spirit's present, it's presence in the mystical body
is unique and not the same as the motive his
presence everywhere in nature. So while it's true that there's
grace outside the church that leads people and pulls people
to Christ, no one can be saved without being united
to that one mystical body of Christ. And are there
thief on the cross people? Sure? I have no doubt
that in his own way God can do that. But
that doesn't mean that a humanism is true. It doesn't
mean that all religions are are essentially on a great
gradation of scale of being right to the one true Church,
and that's the Vatican too. Model back in two model
has the Roman Church in the center, Eastern Orthodox Protestants
or Anglicans, and then it's sort of like and there's
this scale of gradation, right, And that's not the case.
So while it's true that there is grace outside the
church and that's the only way that we could ever
come to the Church, it doesn't follow from that that
the mystical body exists outside the body. That doesn't make
any sense, because the Orthodox Church is the mystical body
of Christ, right.
Speaker 1: And I want to hammer that point because there was
something I wanted to bring up as well, is that
I've noticed even within the Orthodox circles, and I've talked
with some people who follow your work, follow my channel,
and they're in the Oriental Church, and there is a
real emphasis trying to in a way obfuscate or blur
that distinction. And it all comes down to Christology often,
which like you said, is total reflection then of our ecclesiology.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: And so before we even get into then the globalist
funding and pushing of ecumenism, why is it that we
as Eastern Orthodox Christians have to maintain these fundamental distinctions
when it comes to Christology, whether you're a monophyside, a Meophysite,
or an historian, that yes we share a lot of history,
Yes we share a lot of doctrines and perspectives. But
this is coming down to the fundamental crux of again
today's stream is as Orthodox apologists, we have to make
sure that we are defending the true faith in the
true Church, and the true Christology and ecclesiology and all
this stuff. So why is it that people who may think,
you know what, I'm pretty sympathetic to all that Eastern
Orthodoxy stuff. I love that energy esage distinction and their
Christology and how they do their apologetics. But you know,
I'll commune over here in this church. That doesn't make
you orthodox in our in Eastern orthodox sins. You may
be Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian or whatever, but that's not
the same thing. Can you explain why it is so
important that you kind of already hit it, but why
we have to maintain these distinctions and separate Oriental or Catholic.
You know, Protestantism we all get, but Catholic and Oriental
they cannot be blended into Eastern Orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so's that's a great question. And I want to be,
you know, as clear as I can so people don't
misunderstand me or taking my words out of context or whatever.
So let's be really nuanced and try to be as
clear as possible. My understanding of this, and what I
would say is that the h from one bantage point,
it's in or out right. There's no half orthodox, there's
no thirty percent Orthodox seventy five percent Orthodox right. You're
either in the mystical body or you're not right. That's
different from whether people who you know die and say
Oriental Orthodoxy but didn't know anything about all the controversies
and they never consciously believed in some heresy and thought
that they were Orthodox right or something like that. You know,
if Christ and his grace mystically unites them, he can
do that. God. We can't say God doesn't do that.
We don't know that. But that's between them and God.
That doesn't mean that I compromise all my ecclesiology or
anything like that. We still have to maintain and operate
like the Apostles doing the Book of Acts, which is
that when Paul, for example, goes out in the book
of Acts. There's two chapters. I think it's like eight,
and then like nineteen or eighteen or nineteen. You know,
he finds people that are disciples of John the Baptist
or of Apollos right, who have not been fully instructed,
and they're kind of meeting together and doing their own thing.
And the notes in the Orthodox Study Bible are great
because they they make this point to stress that in
those examples, Paul does the work of trying to bring
them under the episcopate. So he doesn't just say, oh, yeah,
it's cool, you know, do whatever you want. We're all
non denominational, set up your rock band on the strip,
mall church, right, because everything's cool. No, he says that's great,
and he treats them like their brothers because they haven't
done anything that would initially make them not brothers. And
so he treats them as potentially in the church, potential
brothers and tries to bring them under the episcopate. And
I think that that's fine, we can do that. You
know that section where Jesus everybody always says, well, your
cumunism is proven by the fact that you know they're
casting out demons and Jesus says let them alone. He
doesn't just say let them alone. He says, there's nobody
who can cast out a demon of my name who
will not also soon be amongst us. So they always
leave out that part, as if Jesus is just like, yeah, man,
do whatever you want, dude. Everybody's doing their own thing, dude.
It doesn't really work like that.
Speaker 1: That's like that Jesus would love the sex workers and
all the transgenders, and if he was here, he would
probably be with all the homosexuals. Well, he would tell
them to stop doing what they're doing and then follow him.
There's a difference there.
Speaker 2: Yes, both things are true. So, yeah, he was hanging
out with the tax collectors and sinners, but he was
also telling them to, you know, come to church, right,
you know, he's setting up the church. You know what
I mean, follow me. Yeah, So exactly, Like there's two
parts to that, and a lot of people like to
leave out the other part. Yeah. So the situation with
the humanism, then, I think, is that the body of
my understanding is the mystical body of the church is
the Orthodox Church. That's the presuppositions of the church, right,
only the Orthodox Church has the healing of the news,
has the sacramental graces and power that are necessary to
accomplish what is lacking in those other churches. Right, And
so while it's true that we might be able to
accept the ritual that went on in another church, right,
we can through economya there can be the acceptance of
this or that ritual that was done in a certain way.
We don't make a judgment that they were necessarily therefore
received into the mystical body. We don't know that. And
I would say that the presuposition of the church is
that the grace of the reception into our church, whether
it's by christ Nation, baptism, or profession, makes up for
what was lacking in those situations. So, you know, the
spirit of the law, I think is that God is
not a miser and if he can save the thief
on the cross, and if he can, you know, save
the people or bring them under the episcopacy in the
Book of Acts who are not fully instructed in the theology.
We're not trying to make a PhD in theology the
prerequisite for salvation. So we don't make the judgment calls
in individuals cases. However, we do make and I think
this is this is a later sort of canon law
concept that comes about later on in the Middle Ages.
But there's this idea that there's the what we call
the public profession, and so canon law these kinds of
things because we don't know people's intentions. The law the
canon is not always trying to judge what can never
really be known. It's trying to judge with what's in
the public sphere. And so what's in the public sphere
we can know. And that's when we have, for example,
a public group that has a heterodox confession, for example,
the Batist Church, right, the Baptist Church has a public
confession that is heterodox, and we say that that is
a heterodox confession. Doesn't mean that I, as an individual
then say, aha, I get to say everybody in the
Babtist Church is going to hell, and I get to like,
you know, use meets you and resent them on and
feel like I'm better than everybody. That's not the right attitude, right.
If I know that that's a heterodox confession, then my
attitude is I want those people to be healed and
I want them to come to the right faith. And
so God doesn't tell us individual's destinies. But what he
does tell us is that it's our duty to tell
them to become orthodox, right, And that's always this has
always been my approach to this, and I think that
that's the that's the balance position, and I'm always open
to being corrected. I don't. I don't if I'm wrong
about this. It's okay. If somebody has a better argument
they can present that. I don't care. But that's my understanding,
and that's that's how I would say that. On the
one hand, people can be united to the church in
uh abnormal or extenuating circumstances by the thief on the cross,
but they're still being united to the body of Christ.
They're not being saved outside the church. There is no
salvation outside the church. They're being united to the church
in a non normative way. But we don't leap from
that to say, oh, well, then then everybody saved. Because right,
let's let's one last sea. Let's take that go ahead.
Let's take the issue of heresy or schism in the church. Fathers,
Heresy and schism are specific sins. Okay, you're not a
heretic because you're just in some group, right, You're a
heretic because with knowledge and obstinacy, right, you reject what
is true, what is what has been presented to you?
And so do we know in the case of people
who have not been presented to the truth, if they're
necessarily heretic. Well, later on the church develops in different
theologians and different manuals and philosophers and stuff. For the
distinction between material and formal heresy. And I would say that,
even though it's used more commonly in the Latin Church,
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that distinction,
because it's like, you know, the Baptist grandma, like she
doesn't know anything about theology. Is she maliciously going around
trying to be heretic? Not necessarily? So does that mean
she's saved? I'm not told that, right, I'm not told that.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 2: I think the brilliant here of the Orthodox position, as
I understand it, is just that it's not my duty
to sit around and try to figure out Paul says,
who are we to judge those that are without? God
judges those right. Our concerns with those who are within,
and our duty is to tell those people to come in.
What God does with them is up to God. I
don't have to say. And that's so much easier because
I don't have to sit around worrying about, you know,
damning Baptist grannies all day or something like that.
Speaker 1: Right, And it doesn't mean to do that, And it
doesn't mean that we can't have friends associates of different
you know, different walks of Christianity. That's not what we're saying.
We're not saying that you, as an orthodox Christian, you
can't be friends with people of different Christian persuasions. But
that's why I titled it the Death of Truth, because
you keep referring back to the body of Christ. The
body of Christ, the salvific Christ, is the truth capital
t Truth is a who, not a what. And so
therefore maintaining these theological nuances and distinctions is essential because
we're claiming we're led by the Holy Spirit. So the
Holy Spirit, the paraclet is leading us towards the truth.
We cannot then water down the doctrines or sort of
blur these distinctions so that it's more accommodating to other people.
So both it can be true, we can be friends
with people, and we can be very cordial and in fact,
you can interview other you know, Christian apologists or philosophers.
There's nothing wrong with that at all. However, equating then
the faith and equating the traditions and saying that we're
all seeing the same form of Christianity, that is not
the case. And by assuming that we'll eventually get into it,
it's now promoting a sense of relativism which is now
putting people entirely outside this salvific body of Christ, because
this notion is keeping people away from the truth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. Another important thing to mention here is the
notion of communion, and in the Orthodox view, communion is
only celebrated via the Confession of Dicythius in churches where
the Orthodox bishop has given permission to the Orthodox priests
to celebrate the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the symbol and
sign of our communal unity. So it cannot exist, according
to the logic of the Confession of Decithios, outside of
the Orthodox faith. So while Romeccallolus might have a service
and they might revere their wafers and all that, we
as Orthodox would not say that that is I'm serious
that we would not say that that is the body blood, soul,
and uncreated energy of Christ right now again. And does
that mean that I'm damning all the Roman Catholics. I'm
not told the destiny of Roman Catholics. What I am told, though,
is that outside of the Orthodox Church, there is not
the medicine of healing, right, And so I want those
people to have the medicine. And that's why I want
them to come into the Orthodox Church. I don't want
them to just be in any kind of church, because
defective theology typically leads to defective living and defective liturgical celebration.
And that's why you see in the Roman Catholic Church.
It's not the fault of the people, it's not the
fault of the laity. It was a top down decision
to renovate and revolutionize that church many many times over
many centuries. And what you get now in a lot
of those novusorio churches, the clown masses, the hip hop masses,
the you know, I'm not being me and I'm being
they are what they're doing. They don't serve to heal
and give the medicine. They don't have the noetic power
to heal the news, which is what we need. And
that's why you know, Heroes does have a great point
about the notion of the presubpositions of the faith. It's
not just an intellectual thing, right, you also need the
medicine that the sacraments of the Orthodox Church has, and
the sacramentology in the Roman Catholic Church is getting so
wild that it's all over the place. So even some
Orthodox people will take issue with this attitude. And it's
not because I have a desire to hate Roman Catholics
or even hate the institution per se. I think it's
a dangerous institution. I think it leads people into a
lot of delusions, and it wrecks a lot of people's
faith because it's so corrupt. Yep. And that doesn't mean
that there's not corruption the Orthodox Church. It just means
that that's a different structure, right, That's a top down structure,
and if the top goes bad, the structure goes bad. Right. Again,
doesn't even mean that people are bad people, right. I
know a lot of Roman Catholics that I'm friends with,
and I think that I think are cool. Amazingly still,
after all these years, we still have Roman Catholic friends
and we disagree and we can have civil you know,
disagreements and still remain friends. I don't hate them, but
I think a lot of people take, for example, you know,
a lot of the aggressive stuff on Twitter or on
YouTube debates or whatever against from a Catholics as if
it's a hatred of those people as a class. It's not.
It's a disagreement with a concern over a corrupt institution
that For example, let me give you one example. There
was a guy I won't name him, but just a
prominent figure that I've never personally interacted with him. I
did reach out to him and try to, you know,
get him into Orthodoxy. And he was a very prominent
writer for a big Catholic publication, for online publication for
many years, and he just kind of gradually was moving,
you know, away from religion and as a whole, becoming
more and more of an atheist because of these problems
in the papacy. And I was watching the same because
I had the same kind of course in my twenties
when I was a traditional Catholic and I was just
getting more and more fed up, and I saw the
same thing, and I reached out and I said, look,
you know, why don't you come chat with us? You know,
come check out an Orthodox or something like that, and
he was just like, now, I'm just I'm done. I'm
done with religion as a whole, because I don't see
any other church as being any any different than what's
in the Roman Catholic Church. And in my experience, of
course there's gonna be problems. Every church has problems, but
I do think the Orthodox Church is different. It's a
unique experience. It is not the same as my experience
in the Roman Catholic Church at all. And if the
Roman Catholic Church is getting to the point where this
just look at the celebration of the sacraments. There's priests
in the Roman Catholic Church that are saying in the baptisms,
you are baptized in the name of the land, the sea,
in the error, that's not a baptism. What. Yeah, There
in the cases where they baptize in the name of
the Mother, like the Goddess or the earth, yeah, and
so on, nobody's standards are those actual baptisms because they're
not even it's not even a ritual even close to
the traditional ritual of the church. And it's not even trinitarian,
right right, So if that's what's going on in the
Roman Catholic world. And I'm not saying that's everyone. I'm
just saying those are cases in the Roman Catholic world.
And it's even crazier in the present world too. It's
like it's getting crazy. Yeah, the logic of certain priests
that it's more practical than and wise to have one
way of receiving converts, which is the ro corps position,
is a position of wisdom just because of how crazy
it's getting. But I don't think that, and it's not
my view that, oh if you if you were received
by Christ nation, you're lost. And I've never said that.
It's just really weird. And you know, people on the
internet have been saying in the last week that that's
my view. I never never said anything like that said.
I've always said that the church is a grace economia
makes up for whatever's like the econome. But I think
that the position of ro corps is a wise position
just because of what I said that, you know, if
you're receiving people who you know, maybe I don't know.
I was baptized as a Roman Catholic ten years ago
in a crazy novsorto perish. I don't remember how they
did it, well, what if they did it in the
name of the land scene there and it wasn't real
baptism at all, right, I mean, what do you want baptism?
That's the point, right, right, So there is no rebaptism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you're hitting on the Roman Catholicism thing. I mean,
just within the last couple of years, we've seen Pascha Mama,
which is a human sacrificial goddess of the Amazon, and
more recently, which I know that you're clearly aware of,
is the Abrahamic House of Faith, right, And so I
just saw I just popping in. I saw Jordan Peterson
just did an interview with like Madgin NOAs and the
whole thing was criticizing net and Yahoo and the sort
of Abrahamic accord. And so they're going forth and I'm
not really interested in but I just clicked it earlier
today just to pass the time, and I hear Madgit's
big upset because they talk about the Western civilization as
Judeo Christian Judeo Christian, which is already a sort of misnomer.
But how well this is, this is keeping the the
is the Islamic faith outside of it. And you guys
are basically set a limb of our Abrahamic faith and
our Abrahamic family. And so there is this real push
right now to equate well, and even Jordan Peterson, oh,
you guys share this. We all share the same book,
which is really just the Old Testament, and we're all monotheisms, monotheisms,
and we might be monotheisms, but we don't worship the
same God. They don't worship a Trinitarian God. And so
this we already see this cultural popular rhetoric of trying
to equate now the Abrahamic faiths. We're seeing it through
the institutions, and of course Pope Francis is sort of
the headworking face of this on the on the Christian side,
and he's trying to speak for all of Christians, even Orthodox,
even Protestants, and and so I didn't know if you
have any comments about how Abrahamic House of faith, how
this fits into all this stuff. And then we can
backtrack back into the funding. And so we're seeing the
endpoint of something that's been pushed for well over one
hundred years.
Speaker 2: Right So the way we get up to this point
of subversion is a situation where the subversion was intentionally
designed by very wealthy, powerful people who saw that this
new idea of what the church could be, that it
could be more like an NGO, Right, they saw the
opportunity to steer this in the direction of geopolitical motivations
and geopolitical situations. And for example, in the Rockfeller's Authorized Biography,
they have a whole chapter about the Accumenist movement, right,
And you would think, well, why would these wealthy people
care about now, I mean the most wealthy people in
the US, right, why would they care about the ecumenist movement?
And the answer is that they saw it as a
way to bring in Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism under
this new agis of the World Council Churches National Council
Churches that they had set up along with the United
Nations UNESCO group, and in tandem with all those together,
they felt like this could be a new religion, right,
a new approach to Christianity where instead of there being
any objective truth or any specific one church, the approach
here would be more of a journey or a praxis
to discovering the church. So the church is in discovery,
and they took the high priestly prayer of Christ right
that we be united, as if the church isn't united.
So it's like, yeah, the vist prayer for us to
be one. Yeah, so that means that we were never one,
but in the near distant future we can all have
this new future amorphous unity around the idea that there
is no truth. There is a gradual convergence, right right?
Does that makes it? Yeah? And and they and they
openly talked about that in that chapter, like they say that, yeah,
what we'll use the acumenist movement essentially to control and
steer the church. And then the David Wimhoff book, which
is that like that nine hundred page text, but David
Wimhoff book, it goes into a lot of detail explaining
the uh how this was done specifically in the Romancolic Church.
He's a traditional Catholic talking about the figure of John
Courtney Murray uh and other other Jesuits who were approached
by C. D. Jackson and people from the CIA in
terms of what they call the doctrinal warfare program under
the guise of the Cold War. So we got to
fight the Soviets, we got to fight the you know,
the atheists, Soviet Empire, So you need to make an
alliance with us and join the fight of Americanism. And
while we can understand in during the Cold War setting
why they would have fallen for that, I'm not sure
to fault those people because they may have had good motives.
The problem is that that comes at a heavy price. Right.
So the heavy price is that, uh, you now have
to submit to new masters, right right, And we see that,
we see that going on today where the churches are
now really expected to go along with the State Department
and the you know what Uncle Sam says, right, uh,
And that's because it's it's it is the same movement
going back to you know, the founding of the of
the Accumenist movement, and you can read about I think
his name was swamp Swamy Viviacananda. Oh yeah, yeah, he
went and met with Rockefeller Senior, and Rockefeller Senior says,
you know what, this guy's you know, all approaching, all
encompassing synchrodous approach would be a great tool for you know,
steering religion in a certain direction. So they even talked
about that. And so that's the the the turning of
Acumenism as a situation where it's like we're going to
meet together and hash out of disagreements, turns into nobody's right,
we're all wrong, We're all in the process towards achieving church.
Church is a teleological end times thing and not a
historical reality. So it's all premised on the rejection of
a historical church, right, and so.
Speaker 1: Maybe you can die continue to follow that line of
thought because I can imagine some people that are less
well knowledgeable about all this stuff. Well, you know, it's
not a bad idea of trying to get us together
and sort of have a unified identity as Christians. And
I've seen recently that they're the whole idea that I've
seen this rhetoric is like, well, if Islam, Christianity, and
Judaism unite, then they'll be able to fight the degenerate
progressivism or the degenerate leftism. But again, this comes back
to a sort of relativism that underpins it, and it's
just going to lead to everybody being ultimately on the
same team. But can you speak to the perniciousness and
the deliberate attempt to subvert Christianity through this ecumenicism And
it wasn't some oh well, maybe we're just going to
get together. Maybe syncretism is as a higher spiritual idea. No,
this was a pernicious attempt from the get go to
subvert it, to undermine traditional foundations, to lead towards a
sort of secular domination of religion itself.
Speaker 2: Right, So the motivations are not that, you know, the
these powerful families or these people in these NGOs are
themselves religious. Now there may be some of them that are,
but it's more of a very malicious sort of power philosophy,
because everything in geopolitics operates on the basis of power
moves and power plays, and so they see religion as
really a tool or an at has schey of the state.
And we can find that pretty consistently in church history.
It's not it shouldn't be anything new, because if we
think back to the Aryan Crisis in the fourth century,
the Aryan Crisis, you had a situation where the emperors
in some cases were Aryan and they wanted to promote
Arianism because it would actually promote their state co opting
of the church. Right. In the same case of the
Iconoclass crisis, you had certain emperors that were iconoclass emperors
and it was a way for them to use the
church as an arm of their power. Likewise, in the
West we always called the investiture controversy, and that's a
similar situation, and were a lot of kings had this
tendency to appoint the bishops of various important dioceses because
they would just make the church in arm of the state.
So this has always been a problem in the church.
And by the way, the Romancallity Church, the papacy, which
is supposed to be exempt from this, is not exempt
from this by having the pope, because in many cases
the pope has also been a creature of various states
and various kings. You know. The Michael Welton book, for example,
covers that very well. We also see it in the
case of the Frankish papacy when after Charlemagne we begin
to see the papacy adopt not in the days of Charlemagne,
but after the days of Charlemane. We see the papacy
adopting the phillioqui clause as a geopolitical strategy for so
that Charlemagne can say, oh, you see, the real churches
are the ones that are in union with me, that
have the Phillioqui in the Creek, right, and that's an
actual you can read about even at the time. Saint
Potius in his letters talks about how the Franks had
a geopolitical motive in doing that. Wow, because it would
be part in part with jurisdictions, makes total sense. The
Frank's control, you see, total So that's why it was
important to Charlemagne to have the Phillyoquay clause in the
Creed in those areas where he expanded. So and St.
Fotius and his letters complains that the Carolinian missionaries were
encroaching on Bulgarian Orthodox territories where they didn't have the Creed,
so they were moving into jurisdictions that were Orthodox. Right.
So those are examples in the history of church where
we see that. Yeah, I mean, this has kind of
been a long time struggle, right, and everybody's probably familiar
with the story of the you know, the Russian Church
and the KGB bishops, right, we've all heard this surely
from the Old War. I just covered a couple of
texts from a neocon actually, you know, going really deep
into the history of the the KGB's espionage activities in
terms of the Vatican, right, and you know how none
of that was really does it come to as a surprise,
right we all kind of Oh, yeah, of course they were,
you know, putting spies in the Vatican. Of course there
were KGB bishops not just in the Russian Church but
also in the Vatican. In Poland, for example, the KGB
had recruited different bishops during the Cold War. So so again,
these are not really things that should surprise us, because
it's all throughout church history, if we know our church history,
and it's unfortunate, but it's no different in our day
that the Church is under a new kind of assault,
which is not a well I guess in some places
it's an over you know, physical assault from the state.
You know, people can get martyred or beat up or whatever.
You know, we have the history of the Muslim persecutions
of the Church, this kind of stuff, But in our
day it's more of an ideological subversion through the heresy
of the humanism, which is just postulating that there's not
a single visible historical church but they we're all in
the process. And the state power I'm saying, has seen
and not just the state, but also the money power
behind the state these these very wealthy families and oligarchs
and so forth. They have seen it as an opportunity
to co op the church and turn it into an
Americanist in geo institution. Right, Well, that's the motivations for them,
and it's very well documented. It's surprising to me that
a lot of people, I think a lot of people
don't study geopolitics. They don't they don't know about this.
They might be studying theology, but they don't know this
other domain. But in this other domain, there's quite a
few Catholic writers that that you know, have done a
great service I think in putting out so many excellent,
scholarly documented I'm not talking about French conspiracy so I'm
talking about intelligence analysts. I'm talking about people who are
you know, FBI consultants. I'm talking about lawyers like David Wimhoff, right.
I mean, these are famous in the sense of academically
famous and established lecturers and professors and lawyers who are
putting out these treatises saying hey, wait a minute, what
about this geopolitical angle at Vatican Two that had a
big influence on, you know, pushing Americanism in the Roman
Catholic Church and so forth, And you know, I found
that to be a big piece of the puzzle that
I wasn't aware of when I was a twenty year old,
you know, Roman Catholic guy twenty one or whatever just
converted to Roman Catholicism and I was hardcore trad and
I'm trying to figure out what's going on. And I realized, well,
it's not all about theology. There's also these other power
plays and these you know, state actors. And for people
that think that's a conspiracy theory, do you not know
about the Cold War? I mean, don't you think that
the Soviet state installed a whole bunch of bishops? And
for those that don't know, I did a whole lecture
with Bishop Jonah Metropultan Jonah, I think last year. We
did a whole interview because he knows a lot about
the history of the Russian Church, and we went really
deep into the nuances of the Cold War. Because a
lot of people who don't know about this, they have
a tendency to get really either or oh, everybody in
the Russian Church was a KGB. It's not like that.
In fact, what the KGB did was in the Russian Church,
they actually had a scale, a gradation scale of like,
these are the bishops that are completely compromised and ones
that we installed. These are the bishops that are maybe
on our side and maybe compromisable, but maybe not. These
are the ones that are not compromisable in our enemies.
And so they had like a scale among the jurisdictions
of the of the Russian Church. And so this idea
of like collective guilt of everybody in the Russian Church
was KGB. A lot of trads have this attitude. Roman
Catholics are like and even to this day, trad Roman
Catholics are like, you know, the KGB hasn't been around
in thirty years, and you know, traditional Catholics are like stuff.
It's like, there is no KGB. I've never been to Russia, right,
I don't have any connection to Putin or any of
these people other than one interview one time with an
intellectual from Russia. That's it. That's that's the But I
do have a love and interest in history, right, So,
and history is very clear about you know, the reality
of power players wanting to use religion