WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.240 --> 00:00:03.359
<v Speaker 1>And it seems like what's going on is a new

2
00:00:03.560 --> 00:00:07.599
<v Speaker 1>one world religion, and in fact they're openly wanting to

3
00:00:07.599 --> 00:00:09.800
<v Speaker 1>build structures promoting this concept.

4
00:00:10.320 --> 00:00:13.759
<v Speaker 2>In Hinduism, people explore the divine mystery and express it.

5
00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:17.359
<v Speaker 2>They seek release from the trials of the present day

6
00:00:17.800 --> 00:00:21.640
<v Speaker 2>and the aesthetical practices profound meditation, and they have recourse

7
00:00:21.719 --> 00:00:27.000
<v Speaker 2>to God. Capital g Adica is literally saying that Capital

8
00:00:27.039 --> 00:00:30.120
<v Speaker 2>g the God of Hinduism, is the God that we

9
00:00:30.199 --> 00:00:30.960
<v Speaker 2>all worship.

10
00:00:38.960 --> 00:00:52.399
<v Speaker 1>The hell, before we even get into the evils that

11
00:00:52.759 --> 00:00:55.719
<v Speaker 1>we want to address, you want to, you know, give

12
00:00:55.759 --> 00:00:58.439
<v Speaker 1>insights to people of what we're not saying that we

13
00:00:58.479 --> 00:01:02.399
<v Speaker 1>do recognize the unification of the original Church, that we

14
00:01:02.439 --> 00:01:06.680
<v Speaker 1>do recognize quote unquote Catholic saints, certain ones aligned with Orthodoxy,

15
00:01:06.719 --> 00:01:10.640
<v Speaker 1>And just before we even dive into any of the topics, what.

16
00:01:12.519 --> 00:01:14.959
<v Speaker 2>You want to.

17
00:01:14.400 --> 00:01:16.680
<v Speaker 1>Share with people, like where we're going, where we're not going.

18
00:01:19.000 --> 00:01:21.359
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that's a great idea. I think that, you know,

19
00:01:21.560 --> 00:01:23.760
<v Speaker 2>a lot of the debates, a lot of the apologetics

20
00:01:23.799 --> 00:01:26.640
<v Speaker 2>in the last few years has got a little nasty

21
00:01:26.719 --> 00:01:28.760
<v Speaker 2>because Roman Catholics are angry at a lot of the

22
00:01:28.760 --> 00:01:30.680
<v Speaker 2>stuff that we do. You know, we've seen so many

23
00:01:30.719 --> 00:01:34.560
<v Speaker 2>people convert from Rome Catholicism to Orthodoxy. So so there's

24
00:01:34.599 --> 00:01:39.239
<v Speaker 2>some sour grapes, some lemons there in terms of attitudes.

25
00:01:39.319 --> 00:01:42.560
<v Speaker 2>But you know, from my vantage point, I don't have

26
00:01:42.640 --> 00:01:46.599
<v Speaker 2>any personal hatred towards Roman Catholicism. I don't hate the

27
00:01:46.680 --> 00:01:51.159
<v Speaker 2>Roman Catholic Church or anything like that. I opposed the

28
00:01:51.200 --> 00:01:54.000
<v Speaker 2>system and particularly you know, the head of that system

29
00:01:54.200 --> 00:01:57.879
<v Speaker 2>and how he is steering that that entity. And so

30
00:01:58.040 --> 00:02:00.640
<v Speaker 2>really it does come from a position of concern and

31
00:02:00.680 --> 00:02:03.760
<v Speaker 2>love and care for Roman Catholics. We want them to

32
00:02:03.840 --> 00:02:07.680
<v Speaker 2>be united with us, but we can't have a false union.

33
00:02:07.760 --> 00:02:12.080
<v Speaker 2>And so the only path to real union and restoration

34
00:02:12.240 --> 00:02:15.240
<v Speaker 2>I think has to come through truth. Right, you can't

35
00:02:15.240 --> 00:02:18.240
<v Speaker 2>have unity without truth, and you can't have truth without unity.

36
00:02:18.280 --> 00:02:20.360
<v Speaker 2>They kind of go together, so they're not either ores.

37
00:02:21.039 --> 00:02:24.560
<v Speaker 2>And you know that, as you said, we do share

38
00:02:25.280 --> 00:02:28.560
<v Speaker 2>commonality the first thousand years of the church, roughly speaking,

39
00:02:28.599 --> 00:02:32.080
<v Speaker 2>where certainly we would acknowledge many holy popes of Rome,

40
00:02:32.199 --> 00:02:35.400
<v Speaker 2>many saints that are popes of Rome. You know, Saint Leo,

41
00:02:35.719 --> 00:02:40.080
<v Speaker 2>the great defender of the you know, to natures in

42
00:02:40.159 --> 00:02:43.560
<v Speaker 2>Christ with his tone at Chalcedon, and of course many

43
00:02:43.599 --> 00:02:48.280
<v Speaker 2>other saints of Rome, so there's nothing inherently wrong with

44
00:02:48.800 --> 00:02:52.280
<v Speaker 2>apostolic succession or the Apostolic See of Rome or anything

45
00:02:52.360 --> 00:02:55.800
<v Speaker 2>like that. But obviously, as everybody knows, I think in

46
00:02:55.840 --> 00:02:58.719
<v Speaker 2>this audience, the divergence comes after about a first you know,

47
00:02:58.759 --> 00:03:01.400
<v Speaker 2>forst thousand years, and there's already seeds of the split

48
00:03:01.479 --> 00:03:04.560
<v Speaker 2>between the East and the West prior to you know,

49
00:03:04.560 --> 00:03:08.199
<v Speaker 2>ten fifty four, but the beginning of the split is

50
00:03:08.400 --> 00:03:10.560
<v Speaker 2>really in the late eight hundreds nine hundreds, and then

51
00:03:10.560 --> 00:03:13.439
<v Speaker 2>it kind of comes to full fruition in my view,

52
00:03:14.120 --> 00:03:16.960
<v Speaker 2>in twelve seventy four the Council of Lions and then

53
00:03:17.599 --> 00:03:21.000
<v Speaker 2>successively later at the Council of Florence, because after the

54
00:03:21.039 --> 00:03:23.199
<v Speaker 2>Council of Lions in twelve twenty four in the West

55
00:03:23.240 --> 00:03:26.400
<v Speaker 2>you have the full on acceptance of the Phillyoaquay in

56
00:03:26.439 --> 00:03:29.560
<v Speaker 2>the sense of a double hypostatic procession, and then you

57
00:03:29.599 --> 00:03:32.800
<v Speaker 2>get the response of the Orthodox, which are the Palomite Synods,

58
00:03:32.840 --> 00:03:36.919
<v Speaker 2>to explicitly reject that. And those have been received universally

59
00:03:37.000 --> 00:03:39.639
<v Speaker 2>throughout the whole world of Orthodoxy. They're part of the

60
00:03:39.800 --> 00:03:44.159
<v Speaker 2>Lenton Liturgy we affirmed, and the teaching and affirmation of

61
00:03:44.159 --> 00:03:47.080
<v Speaker 2>the Palomite Synods and Saint Gregory Palomas. So we know

62
00:03:47.199 --> 00:03:50.080
<v Speaker 2>that we can't accept the philly Oquid doctrine given the

63
00:03:50.080 --> 00:03:53.800
<v Speaker 2>fact that the Palomite Synods reject it, and they reject

64
00:03:53.840 --> 00:03:56.639
<v Speaker 2>it very clearly, say Grey Palmas has a whole work

65
00:03:56.680 --> 00:04:00.639
<v Speaker 2>that Father heres has recently translated into English English called

66
00:04:00.639 --> 00:04:03.759
<v Speaker 2>the Apedictic Treatise on the Holy Spirit, which really quells

67
00:04:03.840 --> 00:04:07.280
<v Speaker 2>gets rid of any notions of there being a reconciliation

68
00:04:07.520 --> 00:04:10.360
<v Speaker 2>in the sense of, oh, it was just a dispute

69
00:04:10.400 --> 00:04:13.159
<v Speaker 2>over words, and we all mean the same thing. No,

70
00:04:13.280 --> 00:04:15.439
<v Speaker 2>we don't, I mean. And Saint Gregor Palm has been

71
00:04:15.479 --> 00:04:18.160
<v Speaker 2>a very clear in the Apdictive Treatise on the Holy

72
00:04:18.199 --> 00:04:21.920
<v Speaker 2>Spirit that the Latin Church is following Satan. There they're Satanic,

73
00:04:22.480 --> 00:04:23.959
<v Speaker 2>and he was saying that all the way back then.

74
00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:26.839
<v Speaker 2>And he also said similar things to Barleum in the

75
00:04:28.120 --> 00:04:31.560
<v Speaker 2>Triads and in the debate with the barleym might I

76
00:04:31.600 --> 00:04:35.040
<v Speaker 2>can dinos that if you follow this course, you will

77
00:04:35.120 --> 00:04:38.240
<v Speaker 2>lead your church and your group into atheism. And that's

78
00:04:38.240 --> 00:04:41.560
<v Speaker 2>precisely what we've seen the West do ideologically, is go

79
00:04:41.639 --> 00:04:45.040
<v Speaker 2>down the course of the track of atheism. So long

80
00:04:45.079 --> 00:04:49.480
<v Speaker 2>story short, you know, there's nothing we're not saying everything

81
00:04:49.519 --> 00:04:51.720
<v Speaker 2>that you believe is false or that you're evil because

82
00:04:51.720 --> 00:04:55.279
<v Speaker 2>you're Roman Catholic, that the system is wrong, and that's

83
00:04:55.319 --> 00:04:57.639
<v Speaker 2>what you know, I really like to get into and

84
00:04:57.680 --> 00:05:01.040
<v Speaker 2>focus on is the systematics and how the systems don't work.

85
00:05:01.279 --> 00:05:03.639
<v Speaker 2>And when you have bad systems, what happens is that

86
00:05:03.680 --> 00:05:09.879
<v Speaker 2>they produce bad results, and they can produce civilizationally catastrophic results.

87
00:05:10.000 --> 00:05:11.839
<v Speaker 2>And that's what's happened in the West.

88
00:05:12.560 --> 00:05:15.319
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and as Orthodox, I mean, we can point to

89
00:05:15.399 --> 00:05:18.199
<v Speaker 1>my favorite church father, Saint Maximus the Confessor and how

90
00:05:18.199 --> 00:05:20.959
<v Speaker 1>he had to appeal to Rome during the time that

91
00:05:21.040 --> 00:05:23.720
<v Speaker 1>he was living because of the controversies of what was

92
00:05:23.759 --> 00:05:25.600
<v Speaker 1>going on in the East, and it was actually the

93
00:05:25.639 --> 00:05:26.600
<v Speaker 1>West that aided.

94
00:05:26.839 --> 00:05:28.600
<v Speaker 2>But again, this is pre schism.

95
00:05:28.639 --> 00:05:31.759
<v Speaker 1>This is before the establishment of the papacy, and where

96
00:05:31.759 --> 00:05:35.160
<v Speaker 1>we really see the split of the One Holy Orthodox

97
00:05:35.240 --> 00:05:41.839
<v Speaker 1>Catholic Church into the papacy again, unleavened bred Eucharist, the

98
00:05:41.839 --> 00:05:44.680
<v Speaker 1>Holy Roman Empire, the alliance with Charlemagne, all this different

99
00:05:44.680 --> 00:05:47.680
<v Speaker 1>stuff where it seems like the things get way more

100
00:05:47.680 --> 00:05:53.000
<v Speaker 1>political than theological as history goes on. So thank you

101
00:05:53.040 --> 00:05:56.399
<v Speaker 1>for beginning there. Now, privately we kind of went back

102
00:05:56.439 --> 00:05:59.040
<v Speaker 1>and forth and you shared with me a news clip

103
00:05:59.519 --> 00:06:05.000
<v Speaker 1>about Pope Francis's new alliance with the Islamic world and

104
00:06:05.120 --> 00:06:08.600
<v Speaker 1>this in this new what Abrahamic religious center, and it

105
00:06:08.680 --> 00:06:13.079
<v Speaker 1>seems like with what's going on post Koufid is a

106
00:06:13.160 --> 00:06:17.519
<v Speaker 1>new one world religion, and in fact they're openly wanting

107
00:06:17.560 --> 00:06:22.199
<v Speaker 1>to build structures promoting this concept. I would love for

108
00:06:22.240 --> 00:06:25.040
<v Speaker 1>you because I feel like this is really a central

109
00:06:25.160 --> 00:06:27.519
<v Speaker 1>point when we look at the evils of the Vatican,

110
00:06:27.600 --> 00:06:29.040
<v Speaker 1>because we're going to go through a lot of them,

111
00:06:29.040 --> 00:06:32.639
<v Speaker 1>but the new one World religion hints at a lot

112
00:06:32.720 --> 00:06:42.160
<v Speaker 1>of the preference for unity over multiplicity, ecumenicism, globalism, alliance

113
00:06:42.199 --> 00:06:44.240
<v Speaker 1>with what it seems to be the sort of technological

114
00:06:44.279 --> 00:06:48.839
<v Speaker 1>one world government that the Pope Francis seems totally in

115
00:06:48.920 --> 00:06:54.199
<v Speaker 1>step with. And so can you dive into the Vatican

116
00:06:54.759 --> 00:06:57.959
<v Speaker 1>the Pope, how long has this process actually been moving

117
00:06:57.959 --> 00:07:00.639
<v Speaker 1>in this this attempt for the Vatican and to really

118
00:07:00.639 --> 00:07:02.680
<v Speaker 1>be the sort of figurehead. It seems like it seems

119
00:07:02.720 --> 00:07:06.439
<v Speaker 1>like the Pope the new religious leader of the new

120
00:07:06.560 --> 00:07:07.519
<v Speaker 1>one world religion.

121
00:07:09.360 --> 00:07:12.160
<v Speaker 2>I think that's definitely where it could go. And I

122
00:07:12.199 --> 00:07:15.120
<v Speaker 2>think that there seemed to be some pretty clear indications

123
00:07:15.160 --> 00:07:18.519
<v Speaker 2>that Etis would certainly like to be in that role

124
00:07:19.519 --> 00:07:23.079
<v Speaker 2>we saw. I mean in terms of I think clear

125
00:07:23.160 --> 00:07:28.639
<v Speaker 2>indicators of this idea in the dogmatic decrees and definitions

126
00:07:28.680 --> 00:07:31.720
<v Speaker 2>of Vatican two, and they are dogmatic, despite however many

127
00:07:31.800 --> 00:07:33.639
<v Speaker 2>Roman Catholics want to say they don't have to accept

128
00:07:33.680 --> 00:07:39.199
<v Speaker 2>Batican two. It was affirm with full papal authority, it's

129
00:07:39.319 --> 00:07:41.199
<v Speaker 2>from the chair, and it deals with faith and morals.

130
00:07:41.199 --> 00:07:44.079
<v Speaker 2>That's really all that's needed to be under the status

131
00:07:44.079 --> 00:07:47.879
<v Speaker 2>of dogmatic declaration for a Roman Catholic. And in fact,

132
00:07:47.959 --> 00:07:49.879
<v Speaker 2>I have a whole video where I go through four

133
00:07:49.959 --> 00:07:54.839
<v Speaker 2>separate documents from the papacy actually affirming and making it

134
00:07:54.959 --> 00:07:57.600
<v Speaker 2>very clear that Vatican two is dogmatic. You do have

135
00:07:57.680 --> 00:08:00.439
<v Speaker 2>to accept. There's not an optional council for Roman Catholic

136
00:08:01.040 --> 00:08:03.959
<v Speaker 2>and there's there's at least four places in other Roman

137
00:08:04.000 --> 00:08:08.079
<v Speaker 2>Catholic dogmatic papal statements that affirm that. So we get

138
00:08:08.120 --> 00:08:10.079
<v Speaker 2>if we get that out of the way, then we

139
00:08:10.120 --> 00:08:13.040
<v Speaker 2>can come to documents like Atata. I don't know if

140
00:08:13.040 --> 00:08:14.560
<v Speaker 2>you're familiar with this, but this is one of the

141
00:08:14.560 --> 00:08:19.480
<v Speaker 2>more famous Vatican two documents, and it's the October twenty eighth,

142
00:08:19.720 --> 00:08:24.639
<v Speaker 2>nineteen sixty five document. It's about five pages, six pages.

143
00:08:24.639 --> 00:08:27.439
<v Speaker 2>It's not that long. Are you familiar with this?

144
00:08:27.639 --> 00:08:29.800
<v Speaker 1>No? I'm not too familiar, can you? You know?

145
00:08:29.879 --> 00:08:32.159
<v Speaker 2>So everybody should be familiar with this, and everybody should

146
00:08:32.159 --> 00:08:34.399
<v Speaker 2>read it because it's not very long. And I think

147
00:08:34.480 --> 00:08:37.039
<v Speaker 2>what you'll notice is kind of the point that we're

148
00:08:37.039 --> 00:08:40.720
<v Speaker 2>getting at here, which is that this idea of generic theism,

149
00:08:40.799 --> 00:08:44.759
<v Speaker 2>that there's a generic, universal idea of just some God

150
00:08:45.000 --> 00:08:48.639
<v Speaker 2>that everybody agrees on, and that therefore we can find

151
00:08:49.320 --> 00:08:53.559
<v Speaker 2>paths to unity from that is really what undergirds the

152
00:08:53.679 --> 00:08:57.360
<v Speaker 2>very thing that we're looking at with this House of

153
00:08:57.559 --> 00:08:59.440
<v Speaker 2>the Faith of Abraham or whatever it is. And I

154
00:08:59.440 --> 00:09:02.759
<v Speaker 2>sent you a link there. There's another there's another proposed

155
00:09:02.879 --> 00:09:05.600
<v Speaker 2>version of this over in Germany. Somebody is saying too

156
00:09:05.600 --> 00:09:09.480
<v Speaker 2>that there's a there's proposed versions of this over in

157
00:09:09.600 --> 00:09:12.559
<v Speaker 2>the United Arab Emirates. And the idea is that, well,

158
00:09:12.559 --> 00:09:15.559
<v Speaker 2>we're going to just get together under a common banner,

159
00:09:16.000 --> 00:09:19.919
<v Speaker 2>not of the accidents, but the essentials. Right, So this

160
00:09:20.279 --> 00:09:24.600
<v Speaker 2>applying the Resitilian distinction of essence and accidents to this

161
00:09:24.759 --> 00:09:27.840
<v Speaker 2>idea that well, don't we all believe in one God?

162
00:09:27.919 --> 00:09:29.440
<v Speaker 2>And if we all believe in one God, that we're

163
00:09:29.440 --> 00:09:31.080
<v Speaker 2>all on the same page, at least as far as

164
00:09:31.080 --> 00:09:33.440
<v Speaker 2>that goes. And then we can just consider the other

165
00:09:33.480 --> 00:09:36.879
<v Speaker 2>stuff like Jesus and Trinity and resurrec virgin birth. Maybe

166
00:09:36.879 --> 00:09:39.279
<v Speaker 2>those are all just kind of like add ons, and

167
00:09:39.279 --> 00:09:44.039
<v Speaker 2>they're not the essentials. And this lowest common denominator fallacy

168
00:09:44.159 --> 00:09:48.399
<v Speaker 2>just keeps getting whittled down right to where ironically, at

169
00:09:48.639 --> 00:09:51.720
<v Speaker 2>Vatican two and Nostra Tat it says, I'm going to

170
00:09:51.759 --> 00:09:54.399
<v Speaker 2>read it. It says, throughout the long history to the

171
00:09:54.440 --> 00:09:57.600
<v Speaker 2>present day, there's found amongst different peoples a certain awareness

172
00:09:57.720 --> 00:10:00.799
<v Speaker 2>of some hidden power which lies behind the course of

173
00:10:00.919 --> 00:10:03.799
<v Speaker 2>nature and the events of human life. At times there

174
00:10:03.840 --> 00:10:08.080
<v Speaker 2>is present even a recognition of a supreme being, perhaps

175
00:10:08.080 --> 00:10:12.639
<v Speaker 2>a father. This awareness and recognition results in a way

176
00:10:12.679 --> 00:10:15.879
<v Speaker 2>of life that is imbued with a deep religious sense.

177
00:10:16.159 --> 00:10:20.320
<v Speaker 2>The religions that are found in more advanced civilizations endeavor

178
00:10:20.559 --> 00:10:25.200
<v Speaker 2>by a way by way of well defined concepts and

179
00:10:25.360 --> 00:10:32.240
<v Speaker 2>exact language to answer these questions. Thus Hinduism Hinduism. In Hinduism,

180
00:10:32.320 --> 00:10:36.279
<v Speaker 2>people explore the divine mystery and express it in limitless

181
00:10:36.480 --> 00:10:40.320
<v Speaker 2>niches ahime me riches of myth, and the accurately defined

182
00:10:40.360 --> 00:10:45.039
<v Speaker 2>insights of philosophy. They seek release from the trials of

183
00:10:45.080 --> 00:10:49.200
<v Speaker 2>the present day and the ascetical practices profound meditation, and

184
00:10:49.240 --> 00:10:54.639
<v Speaker 2>they have recourse to God capital G in confidence and love.

185
00:10:56.279 --> 00:11:00.879
<v Speaker 2>So they're literally said, is literally saying that G, the

186
00:11:00.960 --> 00:11:04.639
<v Speaker 2>God of Hinduism, is the God that we all worship.

187
00:11:04.840 --> 00:11:07.759
<v Speaker 2>Because they're believing in a god, there's some supreme God,

188
00:11:07.799 --> 00:11:10.559
<v Speaker 2>a supreme being. And so the iron here is that

189
00:11:10.720 --> 00:11:14.559
<v Speaker 2>so this is equivalent to me equating as long as

190
00:11:14.600 --> 00:11:18.120
<v Speaker 2>I say it's a supreme being, which in linguistic philosophy

191
00:11:18.159 --> 00:11:21.279
<v Speaker 2>we call that a non rigid designator. There's a paper

192
00:11:21.320 --> 00:11:23.960
<v Speaker 2>that Father Diacon and I covered by a doctor Garibee,

193
00:11:24.440 --> 00:11:27.559
<v Speaker 2>which is actually critiquing this notion of generic theism, or

194
00:11:27.600 --> 00:11:31.480
<v Speaker 2>the idea that just because all the monotheistic religions affirm

195
00:11:31.559 --> 00:11:33.440
<v Speaker 2>a God, that they're affirming the same God. Well, that's

196
00:11:33.440 --> 00:11:38.320
<v Speaker 2>actually a fallacy, and it's it's known as the quantification

197
00:11:38.519 --> 00:11:41.519
<v Speaker 2>shift fallacy. And the reason it's a fallacy is because

198
00:11:41.600 --> 00:11:45.559
<v Speaker 2>it should be obvious that because we're all affirming one,

199
00:11:45.960 --> 00:11:49.000
<v Speaker 2>it doesn't equate to the fact that it's the identical

200
00:11:49.039 --> 00:11:51.679
<v Speaker 2>one that we're all affirming. Right, I mean, I could

201
00:11:51.720 --> 00:11:54.720
<v Speaker 2>say there's one God. Another guy down the road could say, oh,

202
00:11:54.759 --> 00:11:56.320
<v Speaker 2>there is one God. I agree with you, but he

203
00:11:56.440 --> 00:11:59.799
<v Speaker 2>means Satan, right, I'm certain. Maybe maybe he attends that

204
00:11:59.840 --> 00:12:04.159
<v Speaker 2>the the temple of set Church or or the sat

205
00:12:04.279 --> 00:12:08.080
<v Speaker 2>what's the new thing that's they've got the abortion ritual

206
00:12:08.120 --> 00:12:11.360
<v Speaker 2>that they're talking about. The Oh is it the church

207
00:12:11.480 --> 00:12:14.799
<v Speaker 2>Satanic Satanic Temple? Yeah, the Satanic Temple, that's it. Yeah.

208
00:12:14.840 --> 00:12:17.840
<v Speaker 2>Maybe he believes that it's Lucifer, that's the one God.

209
00:12:18.360 --> 00:12:20.080
<v Speaker 2>But does it follow from the fact that we all

210
00:12:20.120 --> 00:12:23.720
<v Speaker 2>believe in one God that it's the same God. No, No,

211
00:12:23.840 --> 00:12:27.519
<v Speaker 2>And that's what's known as the quantifier shift fallacy. Other

212
00:12:27.639 --> 00:12:30.120
<v Speaker 2>examples of this and logic would be situations where we

213
00:12:30.159 --> 00:12:37.240
<v Speaker 2>say something like every woman, uh, every girl loves a boy,

214
00:12:37.360 --> 00:12:42.840
<v Speaker 2>therefore every girl loves the same boy. Right, Right, everyone

215
00:12:42.960 --> 00:12:46.320
<v Speaker 2>is born of a woman, therefore everyone is born of

216
00:12:46.360 --> 00:12:52.559
<v Speaker 2>the same woman. Right. They're obvious fallacies. All of these

217
00:12:52.600 --> 00:12:55.200
<v Speaker 2>religions believe in one God, therefore they believe in the

218
00:12:55.240 --> 00:12:58.440
<v Speaker 2>same God. Now, when we come to, you know, something

219
00:12:58.480 --> 00:13:02.159
<v Speaker 2>like the New Testament, what's perhaps an example of a

220
00:13:02.159 --> 00:13:05.279
<v Speaker 2>religion that's very close to you know, some of the

221
00:13:05.279 --> 00:13:07.639
<v Speaker 2>things that we we would affirm. Maybe they even have

222
00:13:07.679 --> 00:13:11.200
<v Speaker 2>a lot of the books shared with us. Let's say Judaism.

223
00:13:12.399 --> 00:13:16.600
<v Speaker 2>Judaism affirms that Father. Does Jesus say that just affirming

224
00:13:16.600 --> 00:13:20.679
<v Speaker 2>the Father is enough? No? No, he says that no

225
00:13:20.720 --> 00:13:23.440
<v Speaker 2>one comes to the Father but through me. Because the

226
00:13:23.480 --> 00:13:26.840
<v Speaker 2>word father. If God's eternally a father, according to Saint Anthonatius,

227
00:13:26.879 --> 00:13:30.159
<v Speaker 2>he's eternally the father of an eternal son. So the

228
00:13:30.200 --> 00:13:35.759
<v Speaker 2>word father necessitates and implies the son. So I'm no

229
00:13:35.879 --> 00:13:40.240
<v Speaker 2>more joined with that religion than I am with an

230
00:13:40.240 --> 00:13:44.519
<v Speaker 2>Arian or Joba's witness right, I mean, Jee's witnesses said

231
00:13:44.519 --> 00:13:47.159
<v Speaker 2>there's one God, So are we all on the same team? Well,

232
00:13:47.360 --> 00:13:49.440
<v Speaker 2>the same Basil didn't think so. I mean, he wrote

233
00:13:49.679 --> 00:13:53.440
<v Speaker 2>gigantic treatises and like spent his whole life combating the

234
00:13:54.440 --> 00:13:57.240
<v Speaker 2>idea that we're all of the same faith. Right, And

235
00:13:57.279 --> 00:13:59.879
<v Speaker 2>in fact, if you look at the Niceno constant Apology Creed,

236
00:14:00.600 --> 00:14:04.120
<v Speaker 2>it designates the One God as the Father of our

237
00:14:04.159 --> 00:14:09.519
<v Speaker 2>Lord Jesus Christ, and that implies, by necessary implication, the

238
00:14:09.559 --> 00:14:13.200
<v Speaker 2>Son and the Spirit. As the Cappadocians famously said, I

239
00:14:13.240 --> 00:14:16.320
<v Speaker 2>can no longer think of the One being the essence

240
00:14:16.320 --> 00:14:18.960
<v Speaker 2>of God or the person of the Father, as I

241
00:14:19.000 --> 00:14:22.240
<v Speaker 2>am quickly bound over to think of the three, and

242
00:14:22.320 --> 00:14:24.360
<v Speaker 2>I can no longer think of the three without quickly

243
00:14:24.399 --> 00:14:26.519
<v Speaker 2>being referred back to the one. So there's an equal

244
00:14:26.600 --> 00:14:29.639
<v Speaker 2>ultimacy of the one and the many in the trinity.

245
00:14:30.159 --> 00:14:32.480
<v Speaker 2>So there's no such thing as kind of picking out

246
00:14:32.600 --> 00:14:37.399
<v Speaker 2>because of there being commonalities that there's therefore one lowest

247
00:14:37.440 --> 00:14:41.360
<v Speaker 2>common denominator religion. And if you read the Garibie paper,

248
00:14:41.399 --> 00:14:43.879
<v Speaker 2>he points out that if there's a lowest common denominator

249
00:14:43.960 --> 00:14:47.879
<v Speaker 2>religion that is just the commonalities in these various so

250
00:14:47.919 --> 00:14:51.559
<v Speaker 2>called monotheistic faiths or Abrahamic faiths, then that's actually a

251
00:14:51.639 --> 00:14:56.279
<v Speaker 2>third other religion, right, that's not the other three you see,

252
00:14:56.919 --> 00:14:58.879
<v Speaker 2>And that's all you can. You can prove that logically

253
00:14:58.919 --> 00:15:03.559
<v Speaker 2>by a conjunct where you put, for example, in parentheses

254
00:15:03.600 --> 00:15:06.399
<v Speaker 2>and logic you could say, we're gonna list, let's say,

255
00:15:06.440 --> 00:15:11.200
<v Speaker 2>the beliefs of Orthodox Christianity that make Orthodoxy Orthodoxy, right,

256
00:15:11.240 --> 00:15:13.720
<v Speaker 2>so that would be A would be the Trinity, B,

257
00:15:13.919 --> 00:15:18.480
<v Speaker 2>Virgin Birth, C, you know, incarnation, D, Resurrection. Right, Let's

258
00:15:18.480 --> 00:15:21.399
<v Speaker 2>say all of the beliefs that are necessary components of

259
00:15:21.759 --> 00:15:24.360
<v Speaker 2>Orthodox Christianity. They're in these parentheses A, A, B, C,

260
00:15:24.519 --> 00:15:28.679
<v Speaker 2>D Z. Right, if we take out Oh but wait

261
00:15:28.679 --> 00:15:31.399
<v Speaker 2>a minute, one of those beliefs is that God's on mission,

262
00:15:31.519 --> 00:15:35.480
<v Speaker 2>so maybe that's you know, G. Well, Jews and Muscles

263
00:15:35.519 --> 00:15:38.960
<v Speaker 2>believe that God's on thisce, so they believe G. Right.

264
00:15:40.039 --> 00:15:43.440
<v Speaker 2>But is G the same as the set that's up

265
00:15:43.480 --> 00:15:46.799
<v Speaker 2>here in the parentheses. No, no, it's not. And even

266
00:15:46.879 --> 00:15:51.159
<v Speaker 2>if I take elements out commonalities, it's not this set

267
00:15:51.559 --> 00:15:55.039
<v Speaker 2>because this set is everything in totality. It's a total set.

268
00:15:55.440 --> 00:15:58.240
<v Speaker 2>It's in the parentheses. And this is just logic showing

269
00:15:58.279 --> 00:16:02.799
<v Speaker 2>that there's no such thing as a core religion that

270
00:16:02.960 --> 00:16:06.879
<v Speaker 2>is the core of these three monotheistic abrahemit face. It's

271
00:16:06.879 --> 00:16:09.519
<v Speaker 2>it's a simple it's a simple way in logic, in

272
00:16:09.600 --> 00:16:12.799
<v Speaker 2>linguistic philosophy to show that this set is not this

273
00:16:12.919 --> 00:16:16.480
<v Speaker 2>set merely because there's common things. Another point, too, is

274
00:16:16.519 --> 00:16:18.399
<v Speaker 2>that he makes in the Garby paper and makes some

275
00:16:18.440 --> 00:16:22.840
<v Speaker 2>really great examples or analogies to a card games. If

276
00:16:22.879 --> 00:16:26.919
<v Speaker 2>I'm playing poker and then I'm playing, you know, crazy eights,

277
00:16:27.720 --> 00:16:30.919
<v Speaker 2>does the fact that Poker and Crazy Eights use cards

278
00:16:31.279 --> 00:16:34.440
<v Speaker 2>mean they're playing a same game the same game? No?

279
00:16:35.399 --> 00:16:38.480
<v Speaker 2>Does the fact that there's cards and rules involved, mean

280
00:16:38.480 --> 00:16:43.080
<v Speaker 2>that there's actually a common core game that's neither poker

281
00:16:43.159 --> 00:16:47.399
<v Speaker 2>nor Crazy Eights. No, of course not, it's this nonsense, right.

282
00:16:47.639 --> 00:16:49.639
<v Speaker 2>So in other words, the set of beliefs is going

283
00:16:49.720 --> 00:16:52.240
<v Speaker 2>to determine the reference in the set. And that's why

284
00:16:52.279 --> 00:16:55.639
<v Speaker 2>it's a holistic it's a whole systemic thing. And so

285
00:16:55.720 --> 00:17:01.320
<v Speaker 2>the word God is in linguistic philosophy, it's known as

286
00:17:01.360 --> 00:17:04.000
<v Speaker 2>a non rigid designator. And what we mean by that

287
00:17:04.119 --> 00:17:06.920
<v Speaker 2>is that it's not a a personal pronoun. It doesn't

288
00:17:06.960 --> 00:17:10.240
<v Speaker 2>pick out anything specific. Even in scripture, the word God

289
00:17:10.359 --> 00:17:14.200
<v Speaker 2>just little case God. It could refer to the person

290
00:17:14.240 --> 00:17:16.839
<v Speaker 2>of the Father. It could refer to the whole Trinity.

291
00:17:17.160 --> 00:17:19.799
<v Speaker 2>It could refer to divine actions or attributes with the

292
00:17:19.839 --> 00:17:24.400
<v Speaker 2>divine essence. It can refer to angels. Angels are called gods, Elohim,

293
00:17:24.519 --> 00:17:27.440
<v Speaker 2>sons of God. It could refer to humans. I will

294
00:17:27.440 --> 00:17:30.480
<v Speaker 2>make you as a god to Pharaoh, right, God says

295
00:17:30.480 --> 00:17:33.559
<v Speaker 2>to Moses. And it could refer to us in deification.

296
00:17:34.160 --> 00:17:37.880
<v Speaker 2>It could refer to demons, right, the gods of the nations.

297
00:17:38.440 --> 00:17:41.079
<v Speaker 2>So the point here is that it's abatance witch the

298
00:17:41.119 --> 00:17:44.680
<v Speaker 2>fact that the other religions use the word God or

299
00:17:44.720 --> 00:17:49.119
<v Speaker 2>the word monotheism, or the word you know, whatever that's

300
00:17:49.160 --> 00:17:51.680
<v Speaker 2>in common. We believe in an omniscient God. You believe

301
00:17:51.720 --> 00:17:54.000
<v Speaker 2>in omnient God. So it's the same God. No, it's not,

302
00:17:54.519 --> 00:17:56.759
<v Speaker 2>because the rest of the set of beliefs about our

303
00:17:56.799 --> 00:18:00.160
<v Speaker 2>God is just as necessary as any single member of

304
00:18:00.160 --> 00:18:03.799
<v Speaker 2>the set right. The Father is just as necessary as

305
00:18:03.799 --> 00:18:07.279
<v Speaker 2>Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit is just as necessary as son,

306
00:18:07.920 --> 00:18:11.640
<v Speaker 2>as as omniscience. You can't start just subtracting from them.

307
00:18:11.920 --> 00:18:14.279
<v Speaker 2>And there's no argument to be made for some of

308
00:18:14.319 --> 00:18:17.000
<v Speaker 2>God's attributes being more self evident than the others. They

309
00:18:17.000 --> 00:18:20.400
<v Speaker 2>all go together. It's holistic. You don't like, learn the

310
00:18:20.519 --> 00:18:23.400
<v Speaker 2>essence of God and then down the road like Tomism says,

311
00:18:23.400 --> 00:18:27.119
<v Speaker 2>we'll tack on trinity, we'll tack on virgin birth. No,

312
00:18:27.400 --> 00:18:29.920
<v Speaker 2>it all goes together, right, it's a set right.

313
00:18:30.559 --> 00:18:32.680
<v Speaker 1>Just based on what you said, this idea, the sort

314
00:18:32.680 --> 00:18:36.599
<v Speaker 1>of manipulation or the word concept fallacy, it almost feels

315
00:18:36.599 --> 00:18:41.039
<v Speaker 1>like there's magical cannontations underneath this. Like I've spoken before

316
00:18:41.079 --> 00:18:43.640
<v Speaker 1>that magic is all about the manipulation of language and meaning,

317
00:18:43.640 --> 00:18:47.480
<v Speaker 1>which then alters people's perceptions of reality. And I can't

318
00:18:47.480 --> 00:18:50.079
<v Speaker 1>help but think when we start looking at Catholic history,

319
00:18:50.640 --> 00:18:54.640
<v Speaker 1>or you know, perennialism itself, this idea of the Abrahamic

320
00:18:54.680 --> 00:18:57.319
<v Speaker 1>religions really all sort of saying the exact same thing.

321
00:18:57.359 --> 00:18:59.880
<v Speaker 1>We can point back to the Iberian Peninsula in Spain

322
00:19:00.400 --> 00:19:03.119
<v Speaker 1>with the Moorish occupation, where they allowed for all these

323
00:19:03.160 --> 00:19:07.440
<v Speaker 1>mystical traditions to study each other and even smoke hashiesh

324
00:19:07.519 --> 00:19:10.559
<v Speaker 1>coming out of Northern Africa. And then right after that

325
00:19:10.839 --> 00:19:13.599
<v Speaker 1>we start looking at the fifteenth century, the fourteen hundreds.

326
00:19:13.599 --> 00:19:16.440
<v Speaker 1>We get the Italian Renaissance, we get the translation of

327
00:19:16.440 --> 00:19:20.599
<v Speaker 1>the Hermetic Corpus, we get Marcillo, Ficino, Giovanni, Picadella, Marindola,

328
00:19:20.640 --> 00:19:27.000
<v Speaker 1>and we see magic, Chaldean oracles, Sufism, Kabbala, and Christian

329
00:19:27.039 --> 00:19:31.480
<v Speaker 1>mysticism all come together in this sort of new understanding

330
00:19:31.519 --> 00:19:35.480
<v Speaker 1>of what man is, of what religion is. And this

331
00:19:35.559 --> 00:19:38.400
<v Speaker 1>is where the perennialism itself, if you're going to trace

332
00:19:38.440 --> 00:19:41.440
<v Speaker 1>that idea really gets going, is the thirteenth century Spain,

333
00:19:41.799 --> 00:19:46.200
<v Speaker 1>and Catholicism has really been associated with this concept ever since.

334
00:19:47.079 --> 00:19:49.720
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I was going to bring up the Renaissance origins

335
00:19:49.759 --> 00:19:53.920
<v Speaker 2>of Ahumanism. Actually because this is a more accurate thesis

336
00:19:54.039 --> 00:20:00.640
<v Speaker 2>on the real origins of Ecumenisma way prior to Bodikan two. So,

337
00:20:00.680 --> 00:20:04.319
<v Speaker 2>for example, if you read a Cult Renaissance Church of Rome,

338
00:20:04.400 --> 00:20:07.319
<v Speaker 2>Hoffman shows in that book that the real origins of

339
00:20:07.400 --> 00:20:11.359
<v Speaker 2>the ideas of a common root of the religions, a

340
00:20:11.400 --> 00:20:16.200
<v Speaker 2>skeletal root religion that is neither Christianity nor Orthodo, nor

341
00:20:17.680 --> 00:20:21.799
<v Speaker 2>Islam nor you know, Judaism, is itself a religious presupposition

342
00:20:21.920 --> 00:20:24.440
<v Speaker 2>that comes out of philosophical schools. So it's kind of

343
00:20:24.440 --> 00:20:28.359
<v Speaker 2>a neoplatonic approach, and it's an approach as you said

344
00:20:28.359 --> 00:20:31.079
<v Speaker 2>that it gets adopted eventually by the perennial schools, which

345
00:20:31.079 --> 00:20:35.920
<v Speaker 2>are really just borrowing from Neoplatonism to try to find

346
00:20:36.039 --> 00:20:40.799
<v Speaker 2>the grand ultimate skeletal backbone of what the world religions are,

347
00:20:40.920 --> 00:20:44.000
<v Speaker 2>which are just kind of masks. So the perennialist idea,

348
00:20:44.079 --> 00:20:46.720
<v Speaker 2>which again is not new, it was already had and

349
00:20:46.759 --> 00:20:50.759
<v Speaker 2>seed form by Neoplatonists, and then it's regurgitated by the

350
00:20:50.759 --> 00:20:54.079
<v Speaker 2>neo platonic schools that really influence the people in the

351
00:20:54.240 --> 00:20:58.160
<v Speaker 2>Italian Renaissance. It's just regurgitating things that had already been

352
00:20:58.359 --> 00:21:01.559
<v Speaker 2>rejected in the first seven count So actually, if you read,

353
00:21:01.599 --> 00:21:04.400
<v Speaker 2>for example, Myandor's book Business Ideology, there's a whole chapter

354
00:21:04.559 --> 00:21:08.720
<v Speaker 2>on the rejection of Neoplatonism. And this is why you get,

355
00:21:08.799 --> 00:21:14.000
<v Speaker 2>for example, the visiting Emperor Saint Justinian is the one

356
00:21:14.000 --> 00:21:18.160
<v Speaker 2>who started closing down the Platonic Academy and these schools,

357
00:21:18.200 --> 00:21:22.519
<v Speaker 2>because what happens is in the sonoticicon there's an explicit

358
00:21:22.559 --> 00:21:27.519
<v Speaker 2>rejection of Platonism, Neoplatonism in this end, this idea which

359
00:21:27.799 --> 00:21:33.519
<v Speaker 2>manifests in the chapter that he wrote called the It's

360
00:21:33.519 --> 00:21:37.200
<v Speaker 2>about the humanists, the monastics and humanists, and so this

361
00:21:37.640 --> 00:21:42.519
<v Speaker 2>eventually manifests is a warfare between neoplatonism. And this even

362
00:21:42.519 --> 00:21:48.000
<v Speaker 2>gets into iconography because the iconoclass are actually rejecting iconography

363
00:21:48.039 --> 00:21:51.759
<v Speaker 2>on neoplatonic grounds. They all have neoplatonic arguments. This comes

364
00:21:51.799 --> 00:21:54.160
<v Speaker 2>up in St. Theodore the STUDEI. It's repeated in the

365
00:21:54.200 --> 00:21:57.920
<v Speaker 2>Alspinsky Treatise with Theology the icon in the chapter on

366
00:21:57.960 --> 00:22:01.680
<v Speaker 2>Gregory Palomos, because palam is them is what undergirds the

367
00:22:01.759 --> 00:22:08.240
<v Speaker 2>affirmation of iconography. The energy's doctrine is crucial and fundamental

368
00:22:08.279 --> 00:22:11.359
<v Speaker 2>to why we do iconography. It's the apologetic argument that

369
00:22:11.400 --> 00:22:14.000
<v Speaker 2>they use. At the Seven Council. St. Theodore and Sat.

370
00:22:14.039 --> 00:22:17.039
<v Speaker 2>John Damascus talk about the energies being the reason why

371
00:22:17.799 --> 00:22:22.920
<v Speaker 2>iconography is useful, correct, important, pedagogical, and also mystical. I mean,

372
00:22:22.920 --> 00:22:25.279
<v Speaker 2>this is why the Saints have a golden halo. It's

373
00:22:25.359 --> 00:22:29.839
<v Speaker 2>because that's signifying the uncreated light. Icons themselves are teaching

374
00:22:29.880 --> 00:22:32.839
<v Speaker 2>the essence energy doctrine. And so when we get to

375
00:22:34.160 --> 00:22:38.720
<v Speaker 2>the Renaissance period, there's a rejection of that idea of

376
00:22:39.039 --> 00:22:43.119
<v Speaker 2>icons and iconography having a specific liturgical setting and meaning

377
00:22:43.200 --> 00:22:45.920
<v Speaker 2>and significance, and there's rubrics for how you do it.

378
00:22:46.200 --> 00:22:49.640
<v Speaker 2>You don't do Chinese Jesus because Jesus wasn't Chinese. But

379
00:22:49.720 --> 00:22:52.680
<v Speaker 2>we specifically see at the time of Charlemagne and after

380
00:22:52.799 --> 00:22:57.359
<v Speaker 2>that's when the Western Church departs right in many ways

381
00:22:57.599 --> 00:23:01.000
<v Speaker 2>from the liturgical norms and from the Seventh Council. The

382
00:23:01.079 --> 00:23:05.000
<v Speaker 2>Romancalloy Church never has really accepted the actual teaching of

383
00:23:05.039 --> 00:23:07.599
<v Speaker 2>the Seventh Ecumenical Council. They afferm it in principle, but

384
00:23:07.640 --> 00:23:09.799
<v Speaker 2>for them, oh, that just means we can do Jesus

385
00:23:09.960 --> 00:23:12.480
<v Speaker 2>art right, and you can do anything, so you can

386
00:23:12.519 --> 00:23:15.039
<v Speaker 2>have God the Father as an old man. No, actually,

387
00:23:15.079 --> 00:23:18.720
<v Speaker 2>the Seventh machemenical council says you cannot paint God the

388
00:23:18.759 --> 00:23:21.039
<v Speaker 2>Father as an old man, and it says that's a

389
00:23:21.200 --> 00:23:24.720
<v Speaker 2>heretical and idolatrous notion. No man has seen the Father

390
00:23:24.799 --> 00:23:27.839
<v Speaker 2>at any time, Jesus says, and never will because the

391
00:23:27.880 --> 00:23:30.759
<v Speaker 2>only icon of the Father is the person of the Son.

392
00:23:30.799 --> 00:23:33.480
<v Speaker 2>The hypostasis of the son is the only icon of

393
00:23:33.519 --> 00:23:38.079
<v Speaker 2>the Father. And so there can be symbolic representations of

394
00:23:38.119 --> 00:23:41.240
<v Speaker 2>the Father in the sense of the three angels in

395
00:23:41.319 --> 00:23:45.119
<v Speaker 2>the you know the famous a Braamic Rublev icon. There's

396
00:23:45.119 --> 00:23:47.680
<v Speaker 2>a symbols that represent the Trinity. But we make it

397
00:23:47.759 --> 00:23:51.240
<v Speaker 2>very clear if you read the later icon councils in Moscow,

398
00:23:51.279 --> 00:23:55.680
<v Speaker 2>they they explicitly know that those icons are not portraying

399
00:23:55.720 --> 00:23:58.759
<v Speaker 2>the person of the Father, right any more than the

400
00:23:58.839 --> 00:24:01.799
<v Speaker 2>number three is like portraying the person of the Father.

401
00:24:01.920 --> 00:24:04.559
<v Speaker 2>It's represents a symbolic it's what's called the idos of

402
00:24:04.599 --> 00:24:07.079
<v Speaker 2>the icon, but it's not the hypostasis of the Father.

403
00:24:07.119 --> 00:24:09.839
<v Speaker 2>And that's made very clear for a reason. Anyway, long

404
00:24:09.839 --> 00:24:13.960
<v Speaker 2>story short is just that iconography Orthodox theology is very clear,

405
00:24:14.079 --> 00:24:18.440
<v Speaker 2>very precise on these topics, and it is always stressed

406
00:24:18.680 --> 00:24:22.359
<v Speaker 2>that as the nice in Crete says, the one God

407
00:24:22.599 --> 00:24:26.480
<v Speaker 2>is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit principally right,

408
00:24:26.519 --> 00:24:29.240
<v Speaker 2>when we begin our trinitary theology, it's the person of

409
00:24:29.279 --> 00:24:34.000
<v Speaker 2>the Father. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, right,

410
00:24:34.440 --> 00:24:37.039
<v Speaker 2>And then yes, I also affirm God from God like

411
00:24:37.119 --> 00:24:40.279
<v Speaker 2>from Light, the Son, and the Spirit. Right. So one

412
00:24:40.359 --> 00:24:42.880
<v Speaker 2>God can pick out different things. It can mean the person,

413
00:24:42.920 --> 00:24:45.519
<v Speaker 2>the Father, it can mean the entire triad, It can

414
00:24:45.559 --> 00:24:48.200
<v Speaker 2>mean the divine essence that they share. It can even

415
00:24:48.319 --> 00:24:50.720
<v Speaker 2>pick out the attributes or energies that God has, because

416
00:24:50.759 --> 00:24:54.680
<v Speaker 2>God is fully present in every energy. Sure, but the

417
00:24:54.720 --> 00:24:59.400
<v Speaker 2>point is just that if we understood even just iconography itself. Right,

418
00:25:00.160 --> 00:25:02.640
<v Speaker 2>And this is another point I'm gonna it's gonna come up,

419
00:25:02.799 --> 00:25:05.240
<v Speaker 2>I'm sure in the debate in a few days with Trent,

420
00:25:05.279 --> 00:25:09.240
<v Speaker 2>because we'll be debating this very topic. Is that you know,

421
00:25:10.720 --> 00:25:14.279
<v Speaker 2>God for us has a specific reference and it means trinity. Right.

422
00:25:14.359 --> 00:25:17.599
<v Speaker 2>It's it's the persons of the Trinity. There's no such

423
00:25:17.599 --> 00:25:21.880
<v Speaker 2>thing as generic theism. Just even by linguistic philosophy, God

424
00:25:21.960 --> 00:25:24.599
<v Speaker 2>is a non rigid designator doesn't tell you. So you're

425
00:25:24.640 --> 00:25:26.920
<v Speaker 2>absolutely right that it's a kind of abate and switch.

426
00:25:26.960 --> 00:25:30.079
<v Speaker 2>I don't know how self conscious the authors of the

427
00:25:30.160 --> 00:25:32.720
<v Speaker 2>Vatican Two documents actually were, because some of this is

428
00:25:32.759 --> 00:25:36.240
<v Speaker 2>really dumb and it's really low level argumentation, Like because

429
00:25:36.279 --> 00:25:40.079
<v Speaker 2>they pray and because they you know, seek out things

430
00:25:40.079 --> 00:25:42.640
<v Speaker 2>in their idolatriust religion, that therefore it's the same god

431
00:25:42.680 --> 00:25:45.000
<v Speaker 2>as us. I mean, that's just not just non sequitors,

432
00:25:45.000 --> 00:25:46.400
<v Speaker 2>that it's that it's our God.

433
00:25:47.079 --> 00:25:50.599
<v Speaker 1>And do you think this emphasis on the like you said,

434
00:25:50.599 --> 00:25:55.000
<v Speaker 1>the neoplatonic presupposition of the sort of skeletal schematical framework

435
00:25:55.079 --> 00:25:57.359
<v Speaker 1>of all world religions and noise comes back to this

436
00:25:57.880 --> 00:26:02.960
<v Speaker 1>unknown or transcendent one again relates to the ancient Greek

437
00:26:03.000 --> 00:26:06.279
<v Speaker 1>problem of the one in the many, and this historical

438
00:26:06.960 --> 00:26:11.559
<v Speaker 1>prevalence to privilege unity over multiplicity. And you see this

439
00:26:11.680 --> 00:26:14.440
<v Speaker 1>in Tomism, you see this in absolute divine simplicity, in

440
00:26:14.440 --> 00:26:18.359
<v Speaker 1>which you've talked about, uh, you know, at nauseum on

441
00:26:18.400 --> 00:26:23.839
<v Speaker 1>yours on your channel. But Orthodoxy doesn't have this dialectical

442
00:26:23.880 --> 00:26:27.279
<v Speaker 1>tension between multiplicity and unity, and therefore you actually find

443
00:26:27.279 --> 00:26:30.000
<v Speaker 1>a balance, You actually find a harmony at an intellectual

444
00:26:30.279 --> 00:26:34.960
<v Speaker 1>and an intellectrical intellectual, you know, theological level. There's a

445
00:26:35.079 --> 00:26:39.160
<v Speaker 1>balance there. Do you think that this has any ties

446
00:26:39.240 --> 00:26:43.799
<v Speaker 1>back to absolute divine simplicity.

447
00:26:42.880 --> 00:26:46.240
<v Speaker 2>What absolutely does, and that's not anything that I came

448
00:26:46.319 --> 00:26:50.319
<v Speaker 2>up with. In fact, countless Orthodox saints and theologians have

449
00:26:50.480 --> 00:26:53.319
<v Speaker 2>been saying this for a long time. In fact, in

450
00:26:53.680 --> 00:26:55.319
<v Speaker 2>the little book that's kind of the good if you

451
00:26:55.359 --> 00:26:57.480
<v Speaker 2>want an introduction to this topic and what we're talking

452
00:26:57.480 --> 00:27:00.160
<v Speaker 2>about here. I don't I don't affirm everything that that

453
00:27:00.640 --> 00:27:03.319
<v Speaker 2>this author writes, but this book is really good, and

454
00:27:03.359 --> 00:27:07.000
<v Speaker 2>it's called Church Papacy Schism by Philip Chrard, And really

455
00:27:07.000 --> 00:27:09.599
<v Speaker 2>the whole thesis of this book is that the imbalance

456
00:27:09.640 --> 00:27:12.160
<v Speaker 2>and the one the many is kind of what undergirds

457
00:27:12.200 --> 00:27:15.759
<v Speaker 2>the Roman Catholic system. So papalism itself never could have

458
00:27:15.799 --> 00:27:19.960
<v Speaker 2>really arisen if the pope didn't kind of arrogate himself

459
00:27:20.000 --> 00:27:22.559
<v Speaker 2>to the office and roll of what the Holy Spirit does.

460
00:27:22.920 --> 00:27:25.519
<v Speaker 2>So it's not accidental that the rise of the papal

461
00:27:25.559 --> 00:27:28.960
<v Speaker 2>monarchy in the early Middle Ages is at the same

462
00:27:29.039 --> 00:27:32.039
<v Speaker 2>time as a direct correlation, direct provable connection between that

463
00:27:32.680 --> 00:27:36.039
<v Speaker 2>and the imbalance that occurs in the philioquy doctrine. The

464
00:27:36.039 --> 00:27:38.880
<v Speaker 2>philioquy doctrine creates a diad And again I would just

465
00:27:38.880 --> 00:27:42.799
<v Speaker 2>say read Saint Photius's mystigogy, because he says improves in

466
00:27:43.440 --> 00:27:46.519
<v Speaker 2>about eighty pages that if you give the power in

467
00:27:46.599 --> 00:27:49.480
<v Speaker 2>particular property of the person the father to the son,

468
00:27:50.200 --> 00:27:51.799
<v Speaker 2>now you have a father son. Now you have a

469
00:27:51.839 --> 00:27:55.519
<v Speaker 2>diad right, and that diad of father's son, which produces

470
00:27:55.559 --> 00:27:59.200
<v Speaker 2>the third person, the father son. There that diad actually

471
00:27:59.240 --> 00:28:02.160
<v Speaker 2>has a power of producing a person that the spirit lacks.

472
00:28:02.640 --> 00:28:05.960
<v Speaker 2>So now, in this silly effort to try to prove

473
00:28:06.839 --> 00:28:09.519
<v Speaker 2>the deity of the Christ against arianism, which is kind

474
00:28:09.559 --> 00:28:13.119
<v Speaker 2>of the motivations of why the Philioque was rolled out

475
00:28:13.160 --> 00:28:15.119
<v Speaker 2>to begin with, which is all kind of a mistake

476
00:28:15.160 --> 00:28:19.279
<v Speaker 2>and a misunderstanding anyway, it really has the opposite effect

477
00:28:19.559 --> 00:28:22.119
<v Speaker 2>of subordinating the spirit. So if the Holy Spirit is

478
00:28:22.119 --> 00:28:26.319
<v Speaker 2>subordinated in the life of this institution, which is precisely

479
00:28:26.400 --> 00:28:28.640
<v Speaker 2>what all of our saints and theologians said that the

480
00:28:28.640 --> 00:28:30.960
<v Speaker 2>philioak we would do again, just read the mystagogy of

481
00:28:30.960 --> 00:28:33.119
<v Speaker 2>Saint Photius. He said it would do that. And then

482
00:28:33.160 --> 00:28:38.079
<v Speaker 2>what happens is that now we need a humanistic role

483
00:28:38.759 --> 00:28:41.960
<v Speaker 2>for the Holy Spirit embodied in the person of the pope.

484
00:28:42.000 --> 00:28:44.039
<v Speaker 2>Now the Pope is the voice of the Holy Spirit.

485
00:28:44.079 --> 00:28:47.839
<v Speaker 2>The voice of God on Earth is no longer the immediate, innate,

486
00:28:48.400 --> 00:28:50.680
<v Speaker 2>direct presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of

487
00:28:50.680 --> 00:28:54.920
<v Speaker 2>the Church. It's now an extra juridical office that speaks

488
00:28:55.000 --> 00:28:57.759
<v Speaker 2>in this way. And so the pope really becomes the

489
00:28:59.160 --> 00:29:01.240
<v Speaker 2>bridge of the Philly okay now or the Holy Spirit

490
00:29:01.279 --> 00:29:04.720
<v Speaker 2>comes into the church, he kind of replaces Christ in

491
00:29:04.759 --> 00:29:09.319
<v Speaker 2>the economia. And that's the argumentation that that Charard makes,

492
00:29:09.359 --> 00:29:12.319
<v Speaker 2>which I've always thought was a really really powerful argument,

493
00:29:12.480 --> 00:29:14.440
<v Speaker 2>and it's and he makes the argument that it's on

494
00:29:14.480 --> 00:29:17.799
<v Speaker 2>the basis of absolute divine simplicity that this even happened.

495
00:29:18.039 --> 00:29:21.200
<v Speaker 2>I mean, Photius himself even says this that the simplicity

496
00:29:21.279 --> 00:29:24.279
<v Speaker 2>doctrine that the Cappadocians and the Church adopted is not

497
00:29:24.359 --> 00:29:27.000
<v Speaker 2>the simplicity doctrine that the West adopted. And so they

498
00:29:27.039 --> 00:29:29.880
<v Speaker 2>even noticed that at the time. That's what undergirds the

499
00:29:29.880 --> 00:29:33.200
<v Speaker 2>whole debate of the Phillyoquay, at the time of Photius

500
00:29:33.319 --> 00:29:36.039
<v Speaker 2>and at the time of the Council Alliance, and when

501
00:29:36.039 --> 00:29:38.680
<v Speaker 2>you read the Tomos of the Palomite Synods and the

502
00:29:39.559 --> 00:29:42.359
<v Speaker 2>Palmite theology of that time, and the oppredicted treat use

503
00:29:42.400 --> 00:29:45.960
<v Speaker 2>of Saint Gregory against the Latins. It's all saying what

504
00:29:46.039 --> 00:29:48.000
<v Speaker 2>I'm saying. It's none of this stuff is like me

505
00:29:48.079 --> 00:29:50.119
<v Speaker 2>making it so, it's just in these documents, very clear,

506
00:29:50.960 --> 00:29:54.680
<v Speaker 2>very lucid logical presentation, by the way, which should show

507
00:29:54.720 --> 00:29:59.400
<v Speaker 2>people that there's nothing antithetical to palamism and apologetics and logic.

508
00:30:00.039 --> 00:30:02.720
<v Speaker 2>I mean, he's using Ariscotan logic. That's what the apedictic

509
00:30:02.799 --> 00:30:04.359
<v Speaker 2>treatise means, right,
