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