Speaker 1: Lippmann then began to draft the propaganda for the Allies
during World War One. He thus assisted Woodrow Wilson in
drawing up the fourteen points. Who did Woodrow Wilson work
for the bankers? Read Colonel House, Colonel Edwin Mandel House,
Woodrow Wilson, agent of the Banking League. At the same time,
the budding science of Watsonian behaviorism provided Walter Lippmann with
the principles to control and manipulate society. Now we enter
the pre Burnet's stuff. Okay, this gets into Berne's manipulating
public opinion. This is when Lippmann writes his landmark book
Public Opinion. In nineteen twenty two, Lippmann claimed that psychologists
had discovered the conditioned response behavior response stimulus response emotion
is not attached to any idea per se. So now,
in other words, man will just be treated as a
beast that can be controlled by a stimulus response enter
in Skinner, be of Skinner and the research of Pavlov.
All of these guys. Research is being used by these
people stimulus response. Stimulus response.
Speaker 2: Now enters in.
Speaker 1: Psychoanalysis and Freud the utilization of sexual imagery in advertising.
Speaker 2: The utilization of.
Speaker 1: Stimulus response to manipulate emotions, the utilization of Freudian.
Speaker 2: Psychoanalysis.
Speaker 1: All of this begins to be utilized at the behest,
not just of psychological warfare for military purposes, but application
to the domestic population through admin through TV, through mass media.
Speaker 2: Thus we see Freudian principles.
Speaker 1: We see all of these degenerate Skinnarian Pavlovian behaviorists Watsonian
principles adopted, and the idea is, utilize these tricks to
sell people on the new American ideology. We can thus
utilize all these psyops tricks to debase the people to
control their perception. Now we can reorient their whole perception
of life, of the world, of religion, the church, America, Americanism.
In other words, they had mastered social engineering by this
time culture creation, creating toxic culture. Thus, by the time
that he had set up Time Magazine and got it going,
and by the time it became like the pre eminent
tool of telling America what America is and how to
believe in, how to think, Time Magazine basically became an
empire which was able to control perception through the control
of information. This allows later on other entities to rise
to power like the Rand Corporation, other think tanks and
NGOs which are also able to now contribute to the
steering of the American ideology, redefining America as the Rank
Corporation does, from being a production economy to a service economy,
from creating a production based economy to a consumer coomer.
Speaker 2: Culture consumer.
Speaker 1: All created by Rand Corporation, even to the extent of
how to convince people that they are atomistic individuals, and
as an atomistic individual their life could be fulfilled by
instantaneous pleasure principle being satiated through consumerism. It's all bs
and it's all a trick, all of it. What does
alex Obea memory covered Alexabea's Soldiers of Reason History of
the Rancorporation says, if you reject or disagree with any
of Americanism, then you reject the disagree with the Rand
Corporation because the Rand Corporation is who created modern America.
Speaker 2: So you've been sold bullshit. It's not true. It's a lie.
Speaker 1: It's all based on pragmatism, atheism, liberalism, skinarianism, Pablovianism, Watsonianism, materialism,
and it's all a lie. And they even say it
doesn't matter if it's true or false, because it's used
to control you. That's what the architects of this bullshit say.
Speaker 2: Do you understand that.
Speaker 1: The new gospel, the new ideology, would be the quote
great liberal tradition.
Speaker 2: This was something that Henry Loce made up.
Speaker 1: So we got to give an embodiment to a tradition
so that America can accept what America is, to redefine America,
not that it wasn't already liberal, but to redefine it
in such a way that it could be used as
an engine of the wasp, skull and bones establishment.
Speaker 2: What does he come up with? The liberal tradition? What
is this? Let's let Henry Loose himself explain what this is.
Speaker 1: Lu said, America is the supreme embodiment of the tradition.
Garibaldi wrote that Abraham Lincoln spoke of our country as
the apostle of liberty, the harbinger of progress. Note the
religious language, the apostle of liberty.
Speaker 2: This is loose.
Speaker 1: Still, America is the great and magnetic hope and example
for the world. It will draw to herself all who
wish to make Europe at last beautiful and free, the
last great effort being made to establish the liberal tradition
that is political freedom, equality justice, freedom of thought, freedom
of opinion, common decency, the rights of men and women.
Excuse me, common decency, the rights of men and men.
It is a very close battle. The odds are as
far as we can see, about fifty to fifty. So
he's saying this, I guess right before like World War two. Right,
So basically it's just saying that America is the only
hope for the world. The American mythos is French revolutionary
enlightenment BS.
Speaker 2: Generic things. Freedom of.
Speaker 1: Is freedom of political freedom, freedom of ideas, equal justice,
freedom of opinion, common decency.
Speaker 2: What are you talking about? Right?
Speaker 1: But again, remember from the propaganda standpoint, one of the
basic rules of.
Speaker 2: Propaganda is.
Speaker 1: Use the most generic possible slogans because that allows everybody
to interpret the slogans anyway they want.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: You don't want to use a lot of high level
precision in your propaganda.
Speaker 2: Just keep it dumb, dude, because the.
Speaker 1: More generic and catchy it is, the easier it is
to bring people in because they can read into it
whatever they want.
Speaker 2: Right. Just think of the social justice.
Speaker 1: Type things, right, same principle here. All the social justice
stuff is is the latest incarnation of this stuff. Loose
believe that the United States Constitution is the Liberal tradition.
As a corollary of his belief in the Constitution, Henry
Luce believed that business is essentially civilization. Business is life. Yes,
you heard me, business church. You think I'm joking when
I talk about business church, I'm not joking when I
talk about I'm saying that the real church is Business
is mannon so here, through media is one of the
most powerful men in the world at this time, the
voice of skull and Bones, the voice of the oss,
the projector of the four Freedoms to the world, essentially
saying that Leo the thirteen, in his encyclical condemning the
Enlightenment principles, has to go away. The new freedoms that
must be accepted. Uh, oh, guess what they're the freedoms liberty, equality, fraternity,
social justice.
Speaker 2: Where have we heard that before? Oh, that's the Masonic freedoms.
And if he's in.
Speaker 3: Skulling bones, what is skull and bones? Oh, that's Lodge
three two two. Lodge three two two is the Germanic
order of skull and Bones. The lodge of skull and
Bones originates there, which is teaching the four freedoms of freemasonry,
condemned by Potelar the thirteenth. So notice American Enlightenment Freemasonry
embodied in the skull and Bones dictum, the four freedoms.
Henry Loose is oss oss is skull and bones. Henry
Loos is skull and bones, Skull and bone lodge three
to two to two. That's masonic. It's not rocket.
Speaker 1: Science we're doing here. It's not that hard to figure out.
Next we have to talk about we're at two hours.
But next we have to talk about Halfred mckinder, the
Heartland Theory, the classic geopolitical analysis, the Milner Group, Rhodes
Rothschild Milner, the Society of the Elect that's the secret
society that was set up to create the Anglo American
Empire establishment. We will go into his chapter on this,
but basically this is just a chapter summarizing what you
heard me do on my lectures on If you've not
heard the quickly Tragian Hope and Anglo American Establishment lectures,
go listen to those. Subscribe at my site to hear
all those. But that will be where he goes next
and he will talk about the birth of the Anglo
American project prior to World War One with Rawchild, Rhodes Milner,
the Roundtable groups. This will be the plan not just
for the waning British imperium, but the packs Americana to
take over, to be the engine of the Anglo American establishment.
And yes, the State of Israel will play a role
in that. Obviously, Remember the British Empire was already a
world power prior.
Speaker 2: To the establishment of the State of Israel.
Speaker 1: Yes, I know about the Balfour Declaration, I know about
Sykes Pico Treaty.
Speaker 2: I know about all that stuff.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that, but suffice to say that for
part one, we will end it there because we've covered
a lot of meat here.
Speaker 2: But I hope you get the point here.
Speaker 1: The point of what we're saying with this is that
it's not as simple as saying that like the Vatican
was subverted by Freemasons. Venari's Ault of Indida document shows
that the Alt of Indida Lodge took over the papacy.
Speaker 2: It's it's more than that.
Speaker 1: Okay, there's power players like the Anglo American establishment, the CIA,
who co opt openly the Roman Catholic Church. We don't
have to resort to up to obscure Masonic conspiracies. We
already know what happened, okay, and it's clear in this book. So, uh,
we're gonna do this book next. We're gonna we're gonna
work our way through all of it. Please, if you
do want to get into it, I recommend the book.
I know not everybody has time to read an eight
hundred page book, but definitely, Uh, it's eight hundred pages,
one thousand plus footnotes. We're gonna be getting into the CFR,
We're gonna be getting into Cold War. We're gonna be
getting into Russia. We're gonna be getting into radio liberty
now that's a CIA operation during the Cold War, or
how it's related to the Callolic Church, spies and high
places we're gonna get in. I mean, this book is wild.
We're gonna get into Hollywood. There's a whole section of
this book on Hollywood. So it's bigger than we oftentimes assume,
and it does the convenient narrative of one bad guy
is not true, and the trads are just going to
have to come to grips with that. Or they can
just continue melting away in their collapsing entity known as
the Roman Calluy Church if they choose to that's what
they want to do.
Speaker 2: So I said that we would do also Q and A.
Speaker 1: So I'm in a good mood and I'm enjoying talking
about this material. And if anybody wants to hop on
in the discord, feel free to. You can go into
the discord and ask questions about the material that we
covered today, theological questions.
Speaker 2: I don't care what you want to talk about.
Speaker 1: If you get too ridiculous, I'll just kick you out.
So don't waste my time or anybody's time with stupid stuff.
So let me pull up the discord here as I
answer the superchats. So we got a few superchats here.
Thank you guys for those superchats. So m curry, we
explained what wasp was. Ross, thank you for that twenty dollars.
Nice twenty bucks from old Ross there. I don't know
who Ross is, but thank you Ross. Is that Ross
from friends? Thank you Ross from friends? A ten dollars,
Thank you A. Let's get ten bucks from every letter
in the alphabet and then we'll be set for this week.
Compay all the bills. Schopenhauer's bunny. I like that Schopenhower's bunny.
I don't have a question. I just wanted to support
you much appreciated. Thank you for that taco three dollars.
Great information. But do impressions more often now we typically
kind of divide the streams up, you know, like what
We're gonna be doing a soprano stream pretty soon, so
that will be rife with impressions. I'm gonna try to
impress I present everybody. I've got Polly Good, I've got
Tony Good, I've got Christopher pretty good.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: I guess that's like the main ones. But yeah, so.
Speaker 2: We'll have a lot of fun with that sopranos analysis
because that was it was great shows on my favorite shows.
I loved it. I was happy with the ending. I
thought it ended really cool.
Speaker 1: Anyway, So when we do that or when we do
the more jokey streams, there's a lot more impressions in those.
So but thank you for that three dollars taco jack
for three bucks, say is what is the purpose of
riots and violence? This is a strategy of control Ko.
Speaker 2: So if you read there's.
Speaker 1: A great essay at Global Research by Andrew Marshall, young
guy around my age, but he wrote a book or
a long essay called Arc of Crisis, and it's about
Brazinski's model of control chaos. So if you want to
understand the purpose of riots and violence, go read Andrew
Marshall's essay Arc of Crisis about Brazenski. But essentially it
just serves to propel thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Right, Dorman three sixty,
you may be right about the subversion of the Latins,
but you're too mean to debate. Yeah, sure, okay, thank you,
Dorman three sixty.
Speaker 2: I'll take that. I'm too mean, you know whatever.
Speaker 1: Hey, we just had trads all day hanging out in
my discord. Nobody got mad. It was perfectly civil. We
talked for three hours to multiple two least two or
three different trades. So it's not the case that everybody
is that I'm mean to everybody.
Speaker 2: All this kind of nonsense. And imagine the people who
are the.
Speaker 1: Old we're the Church of the Crusaders, We're the crusading Knights.
And then you turn around and your butt hurt because
supposedly I'm mean. I thought you were a crusader. Bro
I thought you're a crusader. You're LARPing as a knight,
but you're mad because I'm mean.
Speaker 2: All right, So there's a super chat. So we got
four hundred people. Welcome everybody.
Speaker 1: Thank you for those and feel free to uh yeah,
you're gonna like the Paul impression. It's it's gonna be
on point. But we'll save that for the soprano string
that Jamie and I will do. So come to the
general chat in the discord if you want to let
me add the discord here. We'll probably get an influx
of lunatics. Not everybody. I love you guys, you're not
a lunatics, but I'm sure some of you guys are lunatics.
Speaker 2: So we'll have to vet the lunatics out of here.
So get the discord link ready and then I'll open
up discord here and we can do a Q and a.
Speaker 4: M h.
Speaker 5: M hmm.
Speaker 2: All right. Gredo are you there? Yes, I am Grado.
He's a good friend from Australia.
Speaker 6: I'm here to ask ask the questions and getting them.
Speaker 7: Tell you yeah.
Speaker 1: Here, he's here to do his best Mail Gibson impression.
He's doing Meil Gibson, Meil Gibson impassinating Grido.
Speaker 5: If I do it Mel Gibson impersonation, they'll shut down
the discord and ban you from YouTube.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, in that case, is there anybody who wants
to do Q and A. If not, we don't have to.
But if there is, is there anybody.
Speaker 7: Uh kind of.
Speaker 2: Have a few questions?
Speaker 6: Okay, j Ashtown, Yes you can ask them.
Speaker 8: Okay, Yeah, you were talking about natural law and like
something and not really too familiar with the issue. If
you could just swing quickly what's wrong exactly with natural.
Speaker 6: Raw and what you're like?
Speaker 8: The Orthodox position is that that it'd be that would
be dandy, all right.
Speaker 1: So the easiest best explanation for this is I'm gonna
tell you too.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 1: I've got it linked at my website. There's there's one chapter.
It's an essay called uh Knowledge. It's called the Knowledge
the Theory of Knowledge of Saint Isaac the Syrian. Okay,
and this is an essay that is in this excellent book.
I recommend the whole book of Orthodox Faith in Life
in Christ by Saint Justin Popovich, because he not only
does he critique the papacy and the humanism of the papacy.
Speaker 2: But he has a whole.
Speaker 1: Chapter called the Theory of Knowledge of Isaac the Syrian,
and Isaac the Syrian, who is obviously a saint the
Orthodox Church, has the same epistemology as Saint Maximus. So
the doctrine is based on the doctrine of the Logi.
Speaker 2: And so what he's going to do in this.
Speaker 1: Chapter is talk about how as Orthodox we don't have
the tonistic doctrine of natural theology because Maximus doesn't teach
natural theology. So what we're saying here is not that
there's no such thing as nature. It's not that nature
doesn't teach us God. It's that nature doesn't teach us
generic theism. Nature teaches us Christ. And no one who
believes in natural theology believes that nature teaches Jesus because
Jesus the Trinity. All that stuff in Tomism is an afterthought.
That's something that you prove after you've proven and stacked
up this stuff of natural theology.
Speaker 2: So what is natural theology?
Speaker 1: Natural theology is autonomous man reasoning an in a sphere
apart from revelation. According to Fetus at ratio of John
Paul the I, it's not based on revelation. It makes
no reference to reveal theology. It's man reasoning only from
created mental principles about the world.
Speaker 2: So we're gonna.
Speaker 1: Reason about the external world, causation, te loos, purpose, the
beginning of the world, et cetera, how it came to be.
And it's all a bunch of nonsense. Why because it
starts with the peripatetic axiom that nothing is in the
intellect that's not first in the senses. Okay, that no
one can defend that position anymore, because at the time
of the Enlightenment it gets critiqued into devastation, it gets destroyed.
Speaker 2: Now, how can I prove all this very easily?
Speaker 1: Can you interpret the world as it is right now
without making reference to the fall? Now, if you believe
in natural theology, yes, you can derive all these principles
about the operation of the natural world merely.
Speaker 2: By sense data, without any reference to revelation. So but
wait a minute.
Speaker 1: When I do that and I look out at the world,
I notice there's things like death and decay, predator and prey.
Is the predator prey slash death feature of the world natural? Now,
most Thomas are probably going to say something like, yes,
there's a natural process that occurs in relationship to death.
Speaker 2: Now, well, wait a minute, Paul says, death is the enemy.
Speaker 1: Death entered because of the fall. So you can't interpret
the world as it is right now without the doctrine
of revelation, namely that it was created and that the
reason that the world is in the state that it
is right now is because of the fall. So the predator, prey,
death aspect of the world is not natural. Thus, Saint
Maximus can say, grace and virtue are the most natural
things to man. There's nothing more natural to man than grace.
So we don't have this nature grace dichotomy that they have.
We don't have this natural theology revealed theology type of system.
The natural world is the same content as revealed theology.
It's just two different modes. So what's the meaning of
scripture the logi of Christ. What's the meaning of the
natural world the logi of Christ? How do they differ?
It's two different modes or mediums or methods. So the
Bible is a bunch of written texts about Jesus. Ultimately,
the natural world is a bunch of animals and sticks
and birds and stones about Jesus. That's what Maximus teaches.
That's the whole point of the Logi doctrine. That's the
whole point of this chapter about the Logi doctrine, that
it's not natural theology from Tunism. Does that make sense?
Speaker 9: Yeah?
Speaker 10: No, I think I get a little bit of that.
Speaker 1: So the very first chapter of Experience of God by
stun Eloy, he starts his systematic theology with this what
I'm saying for the Orthodox there is no distinction between
supernatural grace and nature per se. There is a distinction,
but not a distinction the way that the Roman Catholics
say it.
Speaker 2: We don't believe in natural theology. He says, it's.
Speaker 1: More appropriate to call what we believe in natural revelation.
And he says, how is that the case?
Speaker 2: Where does he go to?
Speaker 1: First Maximus? The first thing he appeals to is Maximus
and the Logi. Because nature is not an uninterpreted brute
fact that comes to you without any theory. Nature is
what the Logos created it to be. Therefore, it can
only be interpreted and understood according to its logie in Christ.
So it's impossible to believe in natural theology. Hence wistan
Neela correctly calls it natural revelation. I mean, another way
I can prove this is that if you believe in
natural theology, then you literally believe you literally believe that.
In Romans One, when Paul talks about the knowledge of
God that all men possess, they literally execute that as
Aristotelian syllogisms. No, Paul is not talking about Aristotelian syllogisms
and Romans one, he's talking about the news. The heart
of man is guilty because all men know in their
hearts that there's one true God. Has nothing to do
with Aristotle syllogisms. And so the whole tonistic exegesis of
what Romans one is talking about is absurd.
Speaker 2: Thank you, j Sorry, I was gonna make it a question.
Speaker 5: How do we define all hard was going to say, Jay,
how do we define.
Speaker 1: God's omnipotence and orthodoxy so that the ability to cause
to find persons is us not held by all the
members of the Trinity.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's a good question.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So somebody might say sometimes Thomas say this, They say.
Speaker 2: Every or even I've even heard Muslims make this argument.
Speaker 1: They'll say that every person in the Trinity has to
have everything in common or one of them would lack. So,
for example, if we say that the Father alone is
the cause of the Godhead, then somehow the Son and
the Spirit would be subordinated because they lack the power
of causing. Well, the first thing that we would say
is that, if you read the compendotionans, the power of
causing is not a it's what we call a hypostatic property.
So it's not a natural property. So anything that we're
going to say is a power common to the person's
is an attribute or a power that's proper.
Speaker 2: To the divine nature.
Speaker 1: So the power to create the world, the power to
show divine justice, divine mercy, divine love, those are all
common to the Godhead, and so they're therefore properties or
attributes that are natural to God. But hyposthetic properties are
different because they're the only properties that we believe as
Orthodox from the Cappadocians that distinguish the person's. So, what
is the father's unique hypostatic property that makes him alone
who he is such that it can't be attributed to
any other person. For us, it's cause that is the
father's unique property. So the words that the church fathers
use to describe the person.
Speaker 2: Of the Father.
Speaker 1: That's confirmed at the First Ecumenical Council, and the Kappadocian
and Athanasian theology is ark an ark a, fount of godhead,
unoriginate origin.
Speaker 2: Cause. Yeah, I think that's most of them, right.
Speaker 1: So those basically sum up who the Father is, and
they're all describing the same single hyposthetic reality. They're not
different attributes of his person. That is his hyposthetic reality.
The Father is the sole origin, the sole cause, the soul, monarchia,
the soul ark the soul anarchia, right, all of those properties.
Speaker 2: He's autotheos.
Speaker 1: He alone is auto theeos okay self caused, self existent,
because the son and the Spirit derive their hypostatic existence
from the Father. That's why Nicea, the Niceno constant Apolitan
creed is a Cappadocian in stating the God from God
like from light proposition. That's what all the Cappadocians taught
about the monarchia of the Father. So to be cause,
to be ourk to be found, to be origin, to
be beginning, to be source, to be autotheos, self caused.
Those are all names expressing the same reality.
Speaker 2: That is the Father.
Speaker 1: Those are all describing who he is. So he cannot
share that with anyone else because they would be father.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So the son can't share any of those properties because
now you have a father son, now you have a diad.
So the power so called of being, the fount rk monarchy,
et cetera, is the Father's hypostatic property. It's not a
property of the Godhead by which one of the other
persons lacks, because the Son, by sharing in the divine nature,
has all the same powers that the Father has. He's
co eternal, he's coequal, he has co dignity, right, he
has co rain.
Speaker 2: He has co love.
Speaker 1: You know, you could say all of the attributes that
are common to the Godhead are shared by the Son
and the Spirit equally. But as it comes to origin
and order, No, the Father is the first, The Father
is the felt, The Father is God. When we say God,
we mean the person of the Father.
Speaker 6: It's a good answer. Does anyone ask any question?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I have a question of Yeah.
Speaker 2: Are the persons of the Trinity God in.
Speaker 6: And of themselves or the God only in.
Speaker 2: Relation to the Father? Yes?
Speaker 1: All the Kappadocians are absolutely unanimous that the only person
whose Autotheos is the Father. So the Son and the Spirit,
when they're called co unoriginate, that's in reference to creation.
It's when they're contrasted to creatures that the Son is
called co unoriginate. He is not called co unoriginate in
respect to the Trinity proper. He's always called of the Father.
And you'll you can read the orations. Gregor naci Angas
is super emphatic about this. He's very clear, Basil is
very emphatic about this. To be unoriginate, to be the
unoriginate origin, to be autotheos, is to be the Father.
So the only sense basically that I am aware of,
in which we can say the Son has the power
of being eternal co originate, right or excuse me, co
unoriginate is in reference to creatures, because he is because
the Trinity created the world.
Speaker 2: Father, Son, and Spirit.
Speaker 1: All participate in the action of creating the world. So
there are there is a couple places where Nazi angers
will say, is he uh uh co unoriginate? He says
only in contrast to creatures, but in terms of the
Trinity proper, he is not co unoriginate, because that would
mean he shares the Father's unique property of being the
unoriginate origin.
Speaker 10: Okay, I have a question, Go ahead, So Jay, you
said that. So you said that when referring to God,
we are referring to the Father. Correct, So then so
then how come? So then how come it is also
correct to say that Jesus is God? Though if God
is only referring to the Father.
Speaker 2: No, I said.
Speaker 1: Properly speaking, God refers to the Father, but God also
refers to the Son and the Spirit, because the Father
communicates the same divine nature to the Son and.
Speaker 6: To the Spirit.
Speaker 2: So if you read the Creed, what does the creed say?
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty.
Speaker 1: So the Cappadocians will stress that the beginning of the
Godhead and the recapitulation of Godhead relates back to the
person of the Father. So the Father not only is
the origin, he's also the source of unity. How is
he the source of unity because he communicates that single
divine nature to the other two?
Speaker 10: I see.
Speaker 1: So we're not saying that the Trinity isn't God. We're
saying that most of the time when we see the
phrase we believe in one God, it's referring to the
hypostasis of the Father, and we say that because it
guards the premiacy of the person a personhood. We don't
we don't begin our Trinitarian theology with the essence.
Speaker 10: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 1: Sure, I would recommend doctor BOE's talk on the monarchia.
He's very good on that, and he just restates what
the Cave Docians say.
Speaker 5: Okay, Christian, I'll just read this one and then we'll
get to you. Christian du what do you think of
the major milestones in the global reaction to the Roman
Catholics slash c I A takeover?
Speaker 2: What do I think of the major milestones and what that?
Speaker 5: What do you think of the major milestones in the
global reaction to the r c C slash c.
Speaker 6: I A takeover.
Speaker 1: I think the milestones in reaction would be what we've
seen in the last several years in relation to the
back and forth between the West and Russia. That's the
main milestones of reaction. So the expansion of Orthodox Christianity
in Russia, the situation in the Ukraine, Montenegro, the Church overthrowing,
what happened in Montenegro, those are the major milestones of reaction.
Speaker 11: Okay, sir to the question, Now go ahead, This is
a two parters, so I'm going to ask I have
like two questions related to Protestantism.
Speaker 12: Okay, but so yeah, My first question is, how do
you respond to the Protestant notion that the church is
invisible as opposed to the Orthodox view of a church
that is a visible institution.
Speaker 2: I would simply say that.
Speaker 1: Paul's predominant image of the church is the body. The
body of Christ is just as physical and just as
flesh as our bodies. When Christ was resurrected, he told
Thomas to put your finger in my side to show
to Thomas that Jesus wasn't a phantasm. It was the
same Jesus who went to the cross, right, So he
has the same body, he has the same piercing in
his side, and he says, put your finger in my
side to show that it's a physical body.
Speaker 2: It's the same one.
Speaker 1: So in the same way, the Eucharist is physical, actual bread,
actual wine, because that's how Jesus instituted it.
Speaker 2: And so in the same way, the.
Speaker 1: Church is made up of visible, physical bodies of people.
So it makes no sense to have this platonic ideal
invisible church, because that no longer fulfills the promises in
the Old Testament about what the church would be when
it comes to be right. You have all these prophecies
in the Old Testament that the sign of the coming
of the Messianic Age will be when all the gentile
nations start to pour into the church. When I go
to church history, I can look and see who that
church is. It's the Orthodox Church. That's the church of
the first thousand years.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 12: So in the second part to that was just a
little context. Me and a friend of mine, we're talking
to a Protestant, older guy, and we wanted to know
how do you respond to Protestants downplaying the importance of
the way communion is prepared, and to give a little
understanding as to why we're asking it, because the guy
that we're talking to said that we needed to that
if it was like I guess you could say, if
it was proper and there was an actual there's an
actual meaning to it, then it should be done in
a feast because it was on it it was originally
prepared on a table in a feast form. How would
you respond to that?
Speaker 1: I see, I think what you're saying so right. We
wouldn't say that. So when Jesus was instituting this feast
in the Upper Room and setting the pattern for it,
he's doing a lot of things that are in accordance
with multiple rituals from the Jewish service. Right, So it's
not just Passover. It's partly Passover, but it's also related
to other feasts by which the Jews. If you read Deuteronomy,
a lot of times when they would have the feast,
they would come to the temple, they would bring their sacrifice,
and they would actually eat the animal with the priest
in the sacrifice.
Speaker 2: So there's a communal, covenental meal.
Speaker 1: When Moses goes up on the mountain in Exodus, he
has a meal with God, this priest. This priest signifies
the Eucharist. When Melchizedek gives when Abraham ties to the Kizic,
Melchizedic fixes a feast of bread and wine, which presignifies
the Eucharist. The point is that there's no way that
you could literally have every one of the Jewish ceremonies
smushed into one.
Speaker 2: So the best way to do it is the way
Jesus did it by creating a meal.
Speaker 1: Now, if you look in the Book of Acts, when
they meet together to have the bread at the first
of the week.
Speaker 2: They're not all doing a.
Speaker 1: Feast, right, There is a love feast that follows the
ceremony that Paul mentions in the New Testament. But the
liturgy itself doesn't have to be a feast, as if
that's somehow essential to the ritual. The other way that
we know this is that the Apostles when they went
and established the churches, they gave the church an actual
liturgy to do. We do the liturgy that's always been done.
Read what Ignatius says about the liturgy in the first century.
Read what Justin Martyr says in one fight about the liturgy.
We still do the same liturgy that they talk about.
Speaker 6: It's not just the lilogy.
Speaker 9: It's also like all the cycles that we do that
they also similar to what the Old Testament believers do.
Speaker 6: So it's like all of our practice.
Speaker 12: Basically, because when I was told about when I when
he kind of like came back at me about this,
you know, when we were talking about when I talked.
Speaker 6: To him about the real presence, he was.
Speaker 12: Like, well, I mean, technically, if we're going to be like,
if you believe in it, then you should have a feast.
And I was kind of like, that's not practical, Like
how would you have a feast for everybody? And I
did mention the literal nature of the words of Jesus
when he was speaking about communion and the blood, blood
and body of Christ. I mean, I think, yeah, And
so is is it You're you're you're coming from an
angle of I guess like practical practicality in church history
having that as a tradition, have like a full on
feast for every communion every uh, you know, like at
the last supper table type of thing.
Speaker 2: Okay, but again I mean yeah, I mean who actually
does anybody? Nobody does this.
Speaker 1: This is like a in other words, there's it was
really weird.
Speaker 12: I didn't expect that it's weird.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: This sounds like some kind of this sounds like some
kind of Hebrew roots kind of thing, like you have
to do everything that was done, you know, like in
a ceremonial way, or it's invalid or something ridiculous like.
Speaker 7: This is it good?
Speaker 6: Ahead?
Speaker 2: By the way, I would say, there's a couple of books.
Speaker 1: If a person wants an introduction to this issue, just
read Hugh Wybrew's book The Orthodox Liturgy, because it's about
how the eucharistic liturgy developed in the Byzantine right.
Speaker 2: It relates back to the synagogue and temple worship.
Speaker 1: And then this book Orthodox Worship living continuity with the
synagogue temple in early Church.
Speaker 2: This is a really good book.
Speaker 1: Books or would you say, two different books, one by
Hugh weybrew W I. B. R. E. W.
Speaker 2: And then a book by Benjamin Williams and Harold Enstall
called Orthodox Worship.
Speaker 1: Okay uh.
Speaker 6: First of all, given ja, I hope you're having a
good day.
Speaker 4: And my basic question would be along the lines of
do you think Americanism? And I guess more generally, the
love of America and its ideals would be compatible with
strict adherence to Orthodox dogra and the traditions of the Church.
Speaker 1: Right, So the Church is not necessarily wedded to any
political structure. The Church's favored monarchy. It has the right
of coronation, which is a kind of sacramental right of
the coronation of kings. But the Church can exist anywhere,
even under governments that do not accept that, or you know,
preach Americanism or whatever.
Speaker 2: So you can be a patriot, you can be.
Speaker 1: A fan of your country insofar as your country's principles
don't contradict Orthodox teaching.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: This is the same principle behind why the martyrs in
the first second third century went to death was that
they weren't rejecting the authority of the state inherently, but
when Caesar overstepped his bounds and asked them to do
things that violated the law of God.
Speaker 2: So there's a.
Speaker 1: Higher authority that trump's even Caesar. That was the reason
why the you know, the martyrs were being put to
death is because they wouldn't admit that Caesar decides, you know,
ultimately what gods are allowed and arn't. So because you
could believe any God you wanted to, as long as
you admitted Caesar was also God and had the finals
say so. Right, that's why the Christians were put to
death because they wouldn't admit that about Caesar. So in
the same way, you could say that, you know, you
can grant to the American situation as much as is
possible in terms of the positive aspects of the system,
but there are aspects of the system which.
Speaker 2: Are not in concord with Orthodox theology.
Speaker 1: For example, it's not the case that the state should
be ideally secular.
Speaker 2: That's not true.
Speaker 6: Do you think that, and only what this?
Speaker 4: Do you think that America was inherently meant to be
a secular nation?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why we started with Thomas Paine. Now that's
a little harry because because you could say, oh, but
some of the founding fathers believed in theism. Some of
them were Episcopalian, some of them were Catholic, one or
two were Catholics, some of them were Deists.
Speaker 2: So I mean yes and no.
Speaker 1: I mean it's like it's like when a when ah,
when a Satanist says I believe in a deity, and
then I say I believe in a deity and a
Muslim says I believe in a deity.
Speaker 2: Do we all believe in a deity? Well? Yeah, but
does that mean we believe in the same deity?
Speaker 10: No?
Speaker 2: So is the.
Speaker 1: American constitution based on Christian principles or Enlightenment principles both?
Speaker 2: It's a it's a mix. So there's not a there's
not like an easy way out of this.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, all right, that's pretty much answered my question.
Thanks verat timing Ja.
Speaker 13: Okay, okay, go ahead, uh quick, Jay you mentioned that
Ratsinger denies the.
Speaker 6: Bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Speaker 10: Do you mind giving me a citation for that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's at the end of Introduction of Christianity.
Speaker 13: Let me see Introduction of Christianity.
Speaker 10: But h.
Speaker 14: I think yes, I think it's the last.
Speaker 1: The last chapter, the resurrection the Body, page three forty seven,
Introduction of Christianity. A lot of people have made us
stink about it. I mean, he's actually got a whole
bunch of he's got He's got a whole bunch of
modernist statements. It's not like, oh, there's just one.
Speaker 2: But of course, oh well, we don't We don't really
know what he means. He doesn't really say itself. You're
just they're just gonna do the never ending cope of oh,
he didn't really mean that. When he says that, he
basically did not.
Speaker 1: He's like he's he says something like, we can't have
this ancient view of it being like an actual body.
Speaker 2: We don't know what it is. It's just like this
really vague thing about.
Speaker 10: So Dostism is tread.
Speaker 5: Now, Okay, what role does the British intelligence play in
today's geopolitical climate?
Speaker 6: And who is in the driving seat.
Speaker 2: I think that.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can just look at what all has
happened in the last six months, eight months to see
who's running things. I mean, everything is run right now
by the same people that have been running things since.
What I'm talking about in these books, it's the same
power structure. It's the Anglo elite establishment right that includes US,
UK Israel all on the same team, and they are
engaged in all the operations that you're seeing, like in
Russia or in Ukraine. I'm excuting Montenegro, Ukraine. All of
that stuff is the outplaying of this. It's all the
same stuff.
Speaker 5: Next question is what is the orthodoxy viewpoint of mortification
of the flesh in Catholicism.
Speaker 1: Saint Gregory Palamos, we don't believe in mortification. Mortification is
a erroneous doctrine of Catholicism that negates the body. Orthodoxy
is very pro body because of the resurrection. We stress
the resurrection. We don't mortify the flesh. We believe the
flesh is deified, so we do practice asceticism, but that's
not the same thing as mortifying the flesh. Mortifying the
flesh is based on a mistranslation. I think in the Vulgate.
Speaker 5: Does act as purists make or attempt to make the
Trinity into a monad.
Speaker 2: It doesn't attempt to. It attempts to have.
Speaker 1: A philosophical definition and explication of what simplicity is and
how to do natural theology based on philosophic first principles,
but it unfortunately precludes and negates the trinitarian doctrines which
necessitate real distinctions in the Trinity, and for example, one
hypostasis being able to enter into a motive being that
the other two do not, namely, the Son becomes, incarnates
and dies, the Father and the Spirit do not. So
you need a Trinitarian theology that allows for that and
doesn't preclude it by its simplicity doctrine. So Actus purists
also necessitates an eternal creator, an eternal creation that the
eternal actualizer is actualizing and moving. It means that all
possible worlds have to be the actualize.
Speaker 2: There's no potential in God.
Speaker 1: I mean, it has all these problems that just really
don't line up with what's needed to have orthodox trinitarian
and crystological teaching.
Speaker 5: What's the main what is the major problems you see
with using relations of opposition to distinguish members of the Trinity.
Speaker 1: Well, first and foremost, they're not the distinctions that are
already codified and used and confirmed by the Cappadocians. So
Athanacious and the Cappadocians have a very specific, very consistent,
clear doctrine of how to explicate and pick out the persons.
There's nothing about relations of opposition until Augustine and later
Latin theologians. So all I really have to do is
just point out that constantinople One dogmatically affirms the Cappadocian
and ATHANATIONI interpretation of the Creed, so that precludes any
relations of opposition just from the outset on a dogmatic stance.
But beyond that, relations of opposition literally makes absolutely no
sense in the Trinity, because the Trinity is a triad,
not a diad. Opposition relates to diad. God is not
a diad, the Trinity is not a diad. There's no
such thing as relations of opposition in a triad by definition,
so that's problematic. But also, the persons are not relations,
the persons are subjects. And this is I think Loski's critique,
which is to say that Thomas is wrong when he
says persona at ralacchio, and he only says persona at
ralostio because of absolute simplicity.
Speaker 2: But a relation is a.
Speaker 1: Predicate, not a subject, and the persons are subjects, So
you can't define a subject by a predicate or a relation.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 5: Is In a writing I was reading on the Bogamil heresy,
the writers stated the Latins were still using the liturgy
made by Peter. So could you argue that the Catholics
not preserving the liturgy of Peter is evidence in a
sense against either papal infallibility or papal supremacy.
Speaker 1: By the liturgy made by Peter. Are you talking about
the Gregorian liturgy?
Speaker 6: Perhaps we could amuse him or wait for him.
Speaker 10: To clarify that question, because that is a very interesting cavio.
Speaker 8: Yeah, if he wants to, he can just type of question.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not a historian of the history of
the Latin liturgy. I mean, I know about the major reforms,
the Gregorian reforms. I know about what happened under different popes,
pious and these people would the data DEFECTI boos and
all this kind of stuff, So, but I don't know
how I mean I guess. I guess some people would
say that's the liturgy of Peter. I mean, it's not
typically the way the trad speak. They just talk about
the Gregorian right, but I mean Western right Orthodox churches
will use the Gregorian liturgy, So I'm not sure what
you mean by the Petrine liturgy.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I guess my question was like someone were related
to like did he make a liturgy in the sense,
So it was kind of two questions in one.
Speaker 2: I don't know that we probably don't know.
Speaker 1: So actually there's quite a bit about the first and
second century that we don't know. I'm not saying that
there aren't scholars who don't have knowledge of this or
a theory on this. I'm just saying I don't personally know.
I'm not a liturgical scholar. I have some familiarity with
some of the stuff with Patristia, but liturgics is kind
of its own domain, and I don't know exactly it.
Speaker 2: Would probably have to look.
Speaker 1: At Ratolian or Hippolitus, and they could probably have insights
into how the early Latin liturgy bit would have been done,
But I don't actually know.
Speaker 2: That's a good question, ok, thank.
Speaker 5: You, Okay, next, Ascapsultis had a question if you could
have me and ask you a question, go ahead.
Speaker 7: Oh yeah.
Speaker 9: So in a recent video jay that you had on TAG,
you talked about how it's it's necessary for there to
be a trinity because otherwise you end up with this
situation where God is contingent on creation, right, because otherwise
he doesn't he doesn't have a thing to be like
God of Right, Am I representing that correctly?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 9: And so I was just wondering how that exactly works
with like the Son and the Holy Spirit, because I
get them like the Father as the monarch would be
you know, the you know, the monarch of this of
the Son of the Holy Spirit. But would this would
the Son like be the God of the Father and
the Holy Spirit or and like would it worked that
way too?
Speaker 2: No, No, those kind of terms would be.
Speaker 1: Like the Father would still have a premissy in terms
of being the cause to unoriginate the fountain the beginning,
but we don't import into those terms anything to do
with temporal power or supremacy. So the Father in generating
a son that is his icon or his direct image,
also communicates to him the same divine nature that he possesses.
Just as a human father gives birth to a human son.
They have the same nature even though they're distinct persons.
So that's just an analogy for how in the trinity,
the son being the son of the Father. He Jesus
says all these statements in the Book of John, like,
you know, I came to show you the father, to
direct you to the Father. I came to only do
what the Father says. I only follow what the Father
tells me to do. I commit his you know, I
only do his will. So he's in full subjection to
the father. Right, So the father is given premissy in
the sense that he's the father, but he also, Jesus says,
for the Father has given the son to have life
in himself. Right, the father has given everything that he
possesses to the son. So the father communicates and gives
out of self love excuse me, out of true love
to the other, to his son, the full community.
Speaker 2: Of divine power that he possesses. Right, So there's no
lacking in what Jesus has.
Speaker 1: So, in other words, it's not like an either or
where we're saying that God and Lord only apply to
a to a created order. We're saying that The reason
that God doesn't require a created order to be lord
is because the Father has a son, and the Father
and the Son share a communion of love, which is
the Spirit in a manifestation sense.
Speaker 6: Son.
Speaker 9: That the Son and the Holy Spirit would require creation
in order to be lord of something.
Speaker 1: No, because they that's the point of that. They share
that love to one another. So, in other words, the
Son returns the love back to the Father simultaneously, the
Father loves the Spirit uh and the son.
Speaker 2: The Spirit loves the.
Speaker 1: Son and the Father, so that communion is shared amongst
all three. And so the point is that there is
a mutual communion that occurs that doesn't require the property
of In other words, we say that God in the
sense of being lord or providence or God over something,
that's only an attribute that God takes on in relation
to creation. So he wasn't providential or creator before he created.
We don't believe in an eternal creator. But what I'm saying,
I see your objection. I'm trying to see to phrase
it right, you're saying that if the Trinity bypasses the
problem of saying that God needed the creation to be
lord over, then doesn't the Son and the spirit lack
the property of being.
Speaker 2: God or Lord.
Speaker 1: But God and Lord are or we're saying he's obviously
God from all eternity. But sometimes people will say the
definition of God is to be a god of creation.
Speaker 2: So in that sense we don't say he's God.
Speaker 1: If by God you mean God the Father, then yes,
he's God, the Father from all eternity, Father of who
greater than who greater than the Son, in the sense
of being the origin.
Speaker 2: Of the Son.
Speaker 6: All righty, gotcha makes sense, Thank you so much.
Speaker 5: Okay, next question is is there a theological reasoning that
led to the entire Orthodox Church adopting the Byzantine right?
And then he says, after the Calcidon Schism, the Church
of Antioch adopted the Byzantine Rite and abandoned the Syriac right.
In the twelfth century, the Georgian Church adopted the Byzantine
right and dropped the Armenian tradition, and in the sixteenth
century in the Russian Church made their rights conformative to
the Greeks, causing the Old believe aschism.
Speaker 1: But aside from the just the historical instances, I don't
know that there's some overriding decision and to do that,
I mean, there's nothing inherently necessarily wrong with the other
rights per se. And I think even on Mountain Athos
the Liturgy of Saint James is celebrated sometimes right, which
is the Alexandrian liturgy. So it's not infallibly the case
that that's always, but it's rather that it just becomes
more and more normative, and everybody kind of wants to
do things in harmony, I guess. So it's not that
they're defective, but it's it's like the Western right. It's
not that the Gregorian right is necessarily bad, but what
happens is that a lot of times people will bring
their theological baggage and assumptions into the Latin liturgy and
they don't get the good theology that's present in the
Byzantine liturgy. So it's more so maybe pragmatic reasons than
it is like some sort of inherent defect, I would say,
But I'm also not a liturgical scholar.
Speaker 2: That's not mine. Forte.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 5: The next question is how is it possible that the
academic consensus on the works of Saint Dionysius places its
true authorship as some pseudonymous writer almost five hundred years
later than tradition. It seems that such a huge disparity
in dating should be easily resolvable through textual analysis, historical cizations,
and so forth. This strikes me as an important issue
since it gives ammunition to those claiming the ee distinction.
Orthodoxy is just grouped from Neoplatonism. Even Orthodox wiki cs
to the academic consensus. Do the academics have that strong
of a case?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 1: First of all, go read David Bradshaw's book Aristotle East
and West, and you will see that the essence introducinction
is not predicated on Dionysius and the Divine names. Dionysius
and the Divine names does make the essen senterd discinction.
The essence inerdiscinction is completely contrary to Neoplatonism. I'm not
sure to be rude, but if you understood the essence introducinction,
you would know that it's.
Speaker 2: Employed to refute Neoplatonism.
Speaker 1: I can't stress this enough. I get tired of constantly
saying this to the Roman Catholics and to the tomiss
When Basil writes about the essence energy distinction, he's arguing
against people who have Platonic assumptions of simplicity. The essence
energy distinction refutes neoplatonism. Now, is there a similarity between
neoplatonism and what's in Dinysius. Yes, I don't think anybody
disputes that. However, what theoretically could be disputed. If you
read the Steinieloi essay at Orthochristian about the dating of Dinysius,
there is a defense of Dinysius being Dinysius.
Speaker 2: So I would recommend that essay at.
Speaker 1: Orthochristian defense of the dating of Dinasius or something like
that on the title of Dinasia or something like that.
Speaker 2: But setting that issue aside the other possibility. It also
could be the.
Speaker 1: Case that, as I was saying to that guy about
the liturgy, I don't think people realize that when it
comes to these first, second, third, fourth century stuff, there's.
Speaker 2: A lot that we don't know.
Speaker 1: Okay, manuscripts are being discovered all the time, there's new
stuff that comes about, so textual criticism and reconstruction involves
a lot of guesswork. I'm not saying that it can't
be done. I'm not saying that they're all we've had
textual scholars on so I'm not trying to be overly simplistic.
I recognize the nuances. I'm just saying that, for example,
it could be the case that the present documents that
we have of Dionysius are later additions that do include
neoplatonic phraseology and terms.
Speaker 2: So it's not like it has to be some either
or like, well, either there was.
Speaker 1: A dude named Dionysius who composed all of that treatise,
or maybe there's a redacted one that we have that's
from the fourth or fifth century that is based on
a smaller corpus.
Speaker 2: Of the real dynasties. I mean, we just don't know.
So in other words, when you read.
Speaker 1: About textual scholarship, I'm not saying you haven't read it.
I don't know who you are or what you have
or haven't read. I'm just making the point that one
thing that you'll notice is that it's a lot of guesswork.
Remember when we had doctor James snap On and we
were talking about the certain codices that have the giant
space left out for the ending place of mark. So
he's speculating, with reasonable speculation that a lot of these
codices had a parenthesis where there would fit the ending
part of Marx Gospel, so he reasonably assumes that the
ending part of Marx Gospel is supposed to be there.
It's just missing in certain manuscripts because some of the
copyists didn't know what to do with the ellipses. So
there's a whole dispute that's perhaps solved on the of
one speculation. But we don't know, right, because a lot
of textual stuff is reconstructing things that nobody knows for sure.
How much more with ancient texts like Dionysius, Right, we
just don't know. So I'm not a Dinysius scholar. I
don't claim to know about this, but I do trust
the tradition of the church, and there are defenses of
the argument. But before any of that, even the world
authority on Dionysius, Bishop Alexander Golitzen, who does not believe
that Dionysius is Dionysius, he accepts the pseudo thing. In
his essays, he argues that the real origin of Dionysius's
theology is Ezekiel and the.
Speaker 2: Chariot Merkava mysticism, which is true.
Speaker 1: So if the origin is not even Plotinus, then it
really doesn't matter if there's a later similarity between Plotinian
phraseology and imagery and celestial hierarchies or whatever. It doesn't
really matter because nobody denies their similarities in understandings of
this or that. But if you read the divine names,
it's almost all citations from Scripture. Right, So he's talking
to philosophers, trying to speak to them in philosophic language.
But one thing that's really important about Orthodoxy is that
a lot of these terms are not synonymous with the
Hellenic meaning.
Speaker 2: Of the terms, right. Logos Logi a great example of this.
When Saint Maximus.
Speaker 1: Utilizes the logi doctrine, which is from Plotinus, he alters
it in three significant ways. He makes the logi to
be free will actions of God. They're not emanations, they're
not determined generations, they're necessary, and he makes them only
relate to the created order, and thus God can freely
do it, and he makes them personal. He makes them
in hypostatic. So is the phrase logi in Plotinus?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Is the phrase logi in Maximus?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Does that mean that Maximus teaches Plutinian Neoplatonism. No, because
he significantly alters it in three key areas that make
it no longer Neoplatonic and now Christian because he makes
them energies.
Speaker 5: Okay, next question is in two parts, quite a long one,
so we'll.
Speaker 6: Do a first part in the second part.
Speaker 5: So in response to Catholics concerning the philio doctrine, why
does this son proceeding from the will of the Father
necessitate the son as created? If the Father could eternally
will the son's.
Speaker 1: Existence, Because if you read Athenasius, that's an Aryan argument.
Athanasius rejects the Aryan argument that the son is generated
by will. He specifically states that he's not generated by will.
He's generated directly of the Father's nature and there's no
interposition of will. This is what the Arians and then
Eunomius argues, is that the son is a work of
energy and will.
Speaker 2: No, he's not.
Speaker 1: He's a direct natural generation of the Father's essence. So
it's the father as hypostasis with the divine nature. The
divine nature is in hypostatized in the person of the Father,
who generates the son of his nature, you see. So
it's in hypostatic. Even the generation is in hyposthetic. It's
of the Father's nature. So when the son is when
the son is generated. It is not by will, because
anything that's by will is common to the Godhead. It's
common to all three persons, such as creating the world. Father, Son,
and Spirit create the world, even redemption, even if there's
different modes of the person's right. The Son becomes incarnate
and dies, not the Father, not the Spirit. Even those
actions are to the Godhead, but they are actualized or
in h they are brought to reality in three unique
modes of existence. So therefore the Spirit cannot be proceeding
by will, because that would mean he's a creature. That
would mean that the Father and the Son create the Spirit,
because anything by will is common to the Godhead, and
if it's common to the Godhead, then all three do it.
Or this makes no sense, right, So that's just taking
the Aryan argument about the Son being an act of
God's will and applying it to the Holy Spirit. Now,
the Holy Spirit would be an act of God's will
and therefore a creature. That's why Athanasius says the sun
is not generated by will.
Speaker 2: He's God of God, light of light. There's no interposition
of will.
Speaker 5: And the second part of the question is if the
spirit shays the same essence with the Father, and the
Spirit is generated from the Father's essence nature. Why wouldn't
the criticism that we force mainly that the spirit being
a product of the Father's will and sharing the same
will as the Father resulting in the spirit.
Speaker 1: How can it be a product of will if it
shares the same will, It makes no sense. The spirit
is a product of the spiration of the Father, not
the will of the Father. Because father, son and Spirit
share one will. Will is a faculty of nature, not person.
So all of this nonsense, and that this is directly
from Ludwig Ought in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. He says,
the Holy Spirit proceeds by will. No, he doesn't, No
more than the Son is generated by will.
Speaker 2: Why not?
Speaker 1: Because the Father, son, and Spirit have one will. They
all share the same will and nobody. But if they
all share the same will, then nobody would would affirm
that the Holy Spirit wills himself? Right, he doesn't generate
or he does process himself. Therefore he cannot proceed by will.
It's a fundamental blunder.
Speaker 5: Next question is several Western scholars claim Epistles one, three,
three John forderies developed by the medieval Church how can
we debunk this nonsensical theory.
Speaker 1: Well, I can debunk that right away because the Church
fathers cite these epistles. So that's ludicrous. I mean, I
can give you read any of the major church fathers
will include the Catholic epistles in their canon. Their list
of the canon Athanasius includes going from Memory the Catholic Epistles,
So that's on its face ludicrous that it would be
a medieval invention. That's preposterous. You could debunk that in
about two minutes with Google.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Next question is for someone looking to convert to Orthodoxy,
what's with the schism with Constantinople and Moscow?
Speaker 6: Where can I learn about it?
Speaker 5: And would it refer on which jurisdiction I joined?
Speaker 2: Could you repeat the last part you're looking to convert in?
Speaker 6: What he wants to know?
Speaker 5: What is the circumstance with the schism with Constantinople in
Moscow and where can.
Speaker 6: He learn about it?
Speaker 1: Well, a lot of what I've talked about in tonight's
stuff geopolitically will relate to that, right, So we're not
I mean, we're talking about stuff in the fifties and sixties,
and tonight's talk but the same issues are what undergird
today's problems between Moscow and Constantinople. So the divide there
has progressed to a certain point in canonical church discipline
where there's a.
Speaker 2: Removal of communion.
Speaker 1: That's the stage right before formal excommunication. So we would
not yet say that everybody in communion with Bartholomew has
lost grace, but we are at the stage before the
next step would be formal excommunication.
Speaker 2: At that point point we would say that you have
to leave ep churches and go arch churches.
Speaker 1: We don't necessarily say that yet, but you can already
see the degradation of the go arch churches in the US.
They're pretty bad. Not every one of them, but some
of them. So long story short, find the best church
around you by visiting all of them and see which
one is the most solid.
Speaker 2: That's the best solution.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 5: Next question is it's a historical question. What would you
say to those who seek to undermine the saintly character
of Sincerial of Alexandria by accusing him of having something
to do with the murder which was carried out by
a mob against Hypatia.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's a Catholic.
Speaker 1: I saw a Catholic article that debunks this pretty pretty easily.
I would just I don't even remember where I found
that article. But also there's a book. Just read John
mcguckin's book. I think he covers this as well. So yeah,
off the top of my head, I don't remember what
the solution is. It's getting late. I'm getting kind of tired.
So is there any more any more easy ones? Maybe
we can we can call it to a closer.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there's there's some short ones. If the father and
son of different person's with the same essence, like a
human father and son, what differentiates is from polytheism?
Speaker 1: No, No, the analogy is made between a father and
a son, just a show at the level of nature, right,
the father gives birth to a son who possesses the
same nature. That's all the analogies intended to show. Obviously,
humans are two distinct beings. The father and the son
are not separate, distinct beings. So I'm not extending the
level of analogy beyond just possessing the same nature.
Speaker 5: This is one did Saint Justin think the son's beginning
was by the will of the father?
Speaker 6: What do we make of that.
Speaker 1: I think that there's one statement in Justin that people
call into question from memory, but I think there's also
other statements in Saint Justin where he seems to pretty
consistently uphold the eternal generation. But there is a sense
in which, for example, we were talking about this the
other day in.
Speaker 2: The discord with Lewis, you could in a like, if.
Speaker 1: There's a term for this type of willing, it's you
could call it something like willing by acquiescence. Like if
I have a son and he's the direct offering of
my nature, I'm also at the same time, in a
sense willing him to be right.
Speaker 2: So just because I I'm.
Speaker 1: I'm agreeing with what happens according to nature, doesn't mean
that I am causing it to happen by will.
Speaker 2: Does that make sense?
Speaker 6: Do you want to go any further?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 2: How many more?
Speaker 10: Left?
Speaker 5: A few?
Speaker 10: There's also a couple of super chats Jake.
Speaker 1: All right, let's see. So all I see is one
super chat from Nico. It says, thank you, Jay, You're welcome, Nico,
much appreciated.
Speaker 5: Yeah, we have like eight more questions. We can just
call it here and everyone write down your questions. Okay,
So you don't have to get them and ask another time.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, I'll just continue in the discord for the
last