Speaker 1: And it seems like what's going on is a new
Speaker 1: one world religion, and in fact they're openly wanting to
Speaker 1: build structures promoting this concept.
Speaker 2: In Hinduism, people explore the divine mystery and express it.
Speaker 2: They seek release from the trials of the present day
Speaker 2: and the aesthetical practices profound meditation, and they have recourse
Speaker 2: to God. Capital g Adica is literally saying that Capital
Speaker 2: g the God of Hinduism, is the God that we
Speaker 2: all worship.
Speaker 1: The hell, before we even get into the evils that
Speaker 1: we want to address, you want to, you know, give
Speaker 1: insights to people of what we're not saying that we
Speaker 1: do recognize the unification of the original Church, that we
Speaker 1: do recognize quote unquote Catholic saints, certain ones aligned with Orthodoxy,
Speaker 1: And just before we even dive into any of the topics, what.
Speaker 2: You want to.
Speaker 1: Share with people, like where we're going, where we're not going.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a great idea. I think that, you know,
Speaker 2: a lot of the debates, a lot of the apologetics
Speaker 2: in the last few years has got a little nasty
Speaker 2: because Roman Catholics are angry at a lot of the
Speaker 2: stuff that we do. You know, we've seen so many
Speaker 2: people convert from Rome Catholicism to Orthodoxy. So so there's
Speaker 2: some sour grapes, some lemons there in terms of attitudes.
Speaker 2: But you know, from my vantage point, I don't have
Speaker 2: any personal hatred towards Roman Catholicism. I don't hate the
Speaker 2: Roman Catholic Church or anything like that. I opposed the
Speaker 2: system and particularly you know, the head of that system
Speaker 2: and how he is steering that that entity. And so
Speaker 2: really it does come from a position of concern and
Speaker 2: love and care for Roman Catholics. We want them to
Speaker 2: be united with us, but we can't have a false union.
Speaker 2: And so the only path to real union and restoration
Speaker 2: I think has to come through truth. Right, you can't
Speaker 2: have unity without truth, and you can't have truth without unity.
Speaker 2: They kind of go together, so they're not either ores.
Speaker 2: And you know that, as you said, we do share
Speaker 2: commonality the first thousand years of the church, roughly speaking,
Speaker 2: where certainly we would acknowledge many holy popes of Rome,
Speaker 2: many saints that are popes of Rome. You know, Saint Leo,
Speaker 2: the great defender of the you know, to natures in
Speaker 2: Christ with his tone at Chalcedon, and of course many
Speaker 2: other saints of Rome, so there's nothing inherently wrong with
Speaker 2: apostolic succession or the Apostolic See of Rome or anything
Speaker 2: like that. But obviously, as everybody knows, I think in
Speaker 2: this audience, the divergence comes after about a first you know,
Speaker 2: forst thousand years, and there's already seeds of the split
Speaker 2: between the East and the West prior to you know,
Speaker 2: ten fifty four, but the beginning of the split is
Speaker 2: really in the late eight hundreds nine hundreds, and then
Speaker 2: it kind of comes to full fruition in my view,
Speaker 2: in twelve seventy four the Council of Lions and then
Speaker 2: successively later at the Council of Florence, because after the
Speaker 2: Council of Lions in twelve twenty four in the West
Speaker 2: you have the full on acceptance of the Phillyoaquay in
Speaker 2: the sense of a double hypostatic procession, and then you
Speaker 2: get the response of the Orthodox, which are the Palomite Synods,
Speaker 2: to explicitly reject that. And those have been received universally
Speaker 2: throughout the whole world of Orthodoxy. They're part of the
Speaker 2: Lenton Liturgy we affirmed, and the teaching and affirmation of
Speaker 2: the Palomite Synods and Saint Gregory Palomas. So we know
Speaker 2: that we can't accept the philly Oquid doctrine given the
Speaker 2: fact that the Palomite Synods reject it, and they reject
Speaker 2: it very clearly, say Grey Palmas has a whole work
Speaker 2: that Father heres has recently translated into English English called
Speaker 2: the Apedictic Treatise on the Holy Spirit, which really quells
Speaker 2: gets rid of any notions of there being a reconciliation
Speaker 2: in the sense of, oh, it was just a dispute
Speaker 2: over words, and we all mean the same thing. No,
Speaker 2: we don't, I mean. And Saint Gregor Palm has been
Speaker 2: a very clear in the Apdictive Treatise on the Holy
Speaker 2: Spirit that the Latin Church is following Satan. There they're Satanic,
Speaker 2: and he was saying that all the way back then.
Speaker 2: And he also said similar things to Barleum in the
Speaker 2: Triads and in the debate with the barleym might I
Speaker 2: can dinos that if you follow this course, you will
Speaker 2: lead your church and your group into atheism. And that's
Speaker 2: precisely what we've seen the West do ideologically, is go
Speaker 2: down the course of the track of atheism. So long
Speaker 2: story short, you know, there's nothing we're not saying everything
Speaker 2: that you believe is false or that you're evil because
Speaker 2: you're Roman Catholic, that the system is wrong, and that's
Speaker 2: what you know, I really like to get into and
Speaker 2: focus on is the systematics and how the systems don't work.
Speaker 2: And when you have bad systems, what happens is that
Speaker 2: they produce bad results, and they can produce civilizationally catastrophic results.
Speaker 2: And that's what's happened in the West.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and as Orthodox, I mean, we can point to
Speaker 1: my favorite church father, Saint Maximus the Confessor and how
Speaker 1: he had to appeal to Rome during the time that
Speaker 1: he was living because of the controversies of what was
Speaker 1: going on in the East, and it was actually the
Speaker 1: West that aided.
Speaker 2: But again, this is pre schism.
Speaker 1: This is before the establishment of the papacy, and where
Speaker 1: we really see the split of the One Holy Orthodox
Speaker 1: Catholic Church into the papacy again, unleavened bred Eucharist, the
Speaker 1: Holy Roman Empire, the alliance with Charlemagne, all this different
Speaker 1: stuff where it seems like the things get way more
Speaker 1: political than theological as history goes on. So thank you
Speaker 1: for beginning there. Now, privately we kind of went back
Speaker 1: and forth and you shared with me a news clip
Speaker 1: about Pope Francis's new alliance with the Islamic world and
Speaker 1: this in this new what Abrahamic religious center, and it
Speaker 1: seems like with what's going on post Koufid is a
Speaker 1: new one world religion, and in fact they're openly wanting
Speaker 1: to build structures promoting this concept. I would love for
Speaker 1: you because I feel like this is really a central
Speaker 1: point when we look at the evils of the Vatican,
Speaker 1: because we're going to go through a lot of them,
Speaker 1: but the new one World religion hints at a lot
Speaker 1: of the preference for unity over multiplicity, ecumenicism, globalism, alliance
Speaker 1: with what it seems to be the sort of technological
Speaker 1: one world government that the Pope Francis seems totally in
Speaker 1: step with. And so can you dive into the Vatican
Speaker 1: the Pope, how long has this process actually been moving
Speaker 1: in this this attempt for the Vatican and to really
Speaker 1: be the sort of figurehead. It seems like it seems
Speaker 1: like the Pope the new religious leader of the new
Speaker 1: one world religion.
Speaker 2: I think that's definitely where it could go. And I
Speaker 2: think that there seemed to be some pretty clear indications
Speaker 2: that Etis would certainly like to be in that role
Speaker 2: we saw. I mean in terms of I think clear
Speaker 2: indicators of this idea in the dogmatic decrees and definitions
Speaker 2: of Vatican two, and they are dogmatic, despite however many
Speaker 2: Roman Catholics want to say they don't have to accept
Speaker 2: Batican two. It was affirm with full papal authority, it's
Speaker 2: from the chair, and it deals with faith and morals.
Speaker 2: That's really all that's needed to be under the status
Speaker 2: of dogmatic declaration for a Roman Catholic. And in fact,
Speaker 2: I have a whole video where I go through four
Speaker 2: separate documents from the papacy actually affirming and making it
Speaker 2: very clear that Vatican two is dogmatic. You do have
Speaker 2: to accept. There's not an optional council for Roman Catholic
Speaker 2: and there's there's at least four places in other Roman
Speaker 2: Catholic dogmatic papal statements that affirm that. So we get
Speaker 2: if we get that out of the way, then we
Speaker 2: can come to documents like Atata. I don't know if
Speaker 2: you're familiar with this, but this is one of the
Speaker 2: more famous Vatican two documents, and it's the October twenty eighth,
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty five document. It's about five pages, six pages.
Speaker 2: It's not that long. Are you familiar with this?
Speaker 1: No? I'm not too familiar, can you? You know?
Speaker 2: So everybody should be familiar with this, and everybody should
Speaker 2: read it because it's not very long. And I think
Speaker 2: what you'll notice is kind of the point that we're
Speaker 2: getting at here, which is that this idea of generic theism,
Speaker 2: that there's a generic, universal idea of just some God
Speaker 2: that everybody agrees on, and that therefore we can find
Speaker 2: paths to unity from that is really what undergirds the
Speaker 2: very thing that we're looking at with this House of
Speaker 2: the Faith of Abraham or whatever it is. And I
Speaker 2: sent you a link there. There's another there's another proposed
Speaker 2: version of this over in Germany. Somebody is saying too
Speaker 2: that there's a there's proposed versions of this over in
Speaker 2: the United Arab Emirates. And the idea is that, well,
Speaker 2: we're going to just get together under a common banner,
Speaker 2: not of the accidents, but the essentials. Right, So this
Speaker 2: applying the Resitilian distinction of essence and accidents to this
Speaker 2: idea that well, don't we all believe in one God?
Speaker 2: And if we all believe in one God, that we're
Speaker 2: all on the same page, at least as far as
Speaker 2: that goes. And then we can just consider the other
Speaker 2: stuff like Jesus and Trinity and resurrec virgin birth. Maybe
Speaker 2: those are all just kind of like add ons, and
Speaker 2: they're not the essentials. And this lowest common denominator fallacy
Speaker 2: just keeps getting whittled down right to where ironically, at
Speaker 2: Vatican two and Nostra Tat it says, I'm going to
Speaker 2: read it. It says, throughout the long history to the
Speaker 2: present day, there's found amongst different peoples a certain awareness
Speaker 2: of some hidden power which lies behind the course of
Speaker 2: nature and the events of human life. At times there
Speaker 2: is present even a recognition of a supreme being, perhaps
Speaker 2: a father. This awareness and recognition results in a way
Speaker 2: of life that is imbued with a deep religious sense.
Speaker 2: The religions that are found in more advanced civilizations endeavor
Speaker 2: by a way by way of well defined concepts and
Speaker 2: exact language to answer these questions. Thus Hinduism Hinduism. In Hinduism,
Speaker 2: people explore the divine mystery and express it in limitless
Speaker 2: niches ahime me riches of myth, and the accurately defined
Speaker 2: insights of philosophy. They seek release from the trials of
Speaker 2: the present day and the ascetical practices profound meditation, and
Speaker 2: they have recourse to God capital G in confidence and love.
Speaker 2: So they're literally said, is literally saying that G, the
Speaker 2: God of Hinduism, is the God that we all worship.
Speaker 2: Because they're believing in a god, there's some supreme God,
Speaker 2: a supreme being. And so the iron here is that
Speaker 2: so this is equivalent to me equating as long as
Speaker 2: I say it's a supreme being, which in linguistic philosophy
Speaker 2: we call that a non rigid designator. There's a paper
Speaker 2: that Father Diacon and I covered by a doctor Garibee,
Speaker 2: which is actually critiquing this notion of generic theism, or
Speaker 2: the idea that just because all the monotheistic religions affirm
Speaker 2: a God, that they're affirming the same God. Well, that's
Speaker 2: actually a fallacy, and it's it's known as the quantification
Speaker 2: shift fallacy. And the reason it's a fallacy is because
Speaker 2: it should be obvious that because we're all affirming one,
Speaker 2: it doesn't equate to the fact that it's the identical
Speaker 2: one that we're all affirming. Right, I mean, I could
Speaker 2: say there's one God. Another guy down the road could say, oh,
Speaker 2: there is one God. I agree with you, but he
Speaker 2: means Satan, right, I'm certain. Maybe maybe he attends that
Speaker 2: the the temple of set Church or or the sat
Speaker 2: what's the new thing that's they've got the abortion ritual
Speaker 2: that they're talking about. The Oh is it the church
Speaker 2: Satanic Satanic Temple? Yeah, the Satanic Temple, that's it. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Maybe he believes that it's Lucifer, that's the one God.
Speaker 2: But does it follow from the fact that we all
Speaker 2: believe in one God that it's the same God. No, No,
Speaker 2: And that's what's known as the quantifier shift fallacy. Other
Speaker 2: examples of this and logic would be situations where we
Speaker 2: say something like every woman, uh, every girl loves a boy,
Speaker 2: therefore every girl loves the same boy. Right, Right, everyone
Speaker 2: is born of a woman, therefore everyone is born of
Speaker 2: the same woman. Right. They're obvious fallacies. All of these
Speaker 2: religions believe in one God, therefore they believe in the
Speaker 2: same God. Now, when we come to, you know, something
Speaker 2: like the New Testament, what's perhaps an example of a
Speaker 2: religion that's very close to you know, some of the
Speaker 2: things that we we would affirm. Maybe they even have
Speaker 2: a lot of the books shared with us. Let's say Judaism.
Speaker 2: Judaism affirms that Father. Does Jesus say that just affirming
Speaker 2: the Father is enough? No? No, he says that no
Speaker 2: one comes to the Father but through me. Because the
Speaker 2: word father. If God's eternally a father, according to Saint Anthonatius,
Speaker 2: he's eternally the father of an eternal son. So the
Speaker 2: word father necessitates and implies the son. So I'm no
Speaker 2: more joined with that religion than I am with an
Speaker 2: Arian or Joba's witness right, I mean, Jee's witnesses said
Speaker 2: there's one God, So are we all on the same team? Well,
Speaker 2: the same Basil didn't think so. I mean, he wrote
Speaker 2: gigantic treatises and like spent his whole life combating the
Speaker 2: idea that we're all of the same faith. Right, And
Speaker 2: in fact, if you look at the Niceno constant Apology Creed,
Speaker 2: it designates the One God as the Father of our
Speaker 2: Lord Jesus Christ, and that implies, by necessary implication, the
Speaker 2: Son and the Spirit. As the Cappadocians famously said, I
Speaker 2: can no longer think of the One being the essence
Speaker 2: of God or the person of the Father, as I
Speaker 2: am quickly bound over to think of the three, and
Speaker 2: I can no longer think of the three without quickly
Speaker 2: being referred back to the one. So there's an equal
Speaker 2: ultimacy of the one and the many in the trinity.
Speaker 2: So there's no such thing as kind of picking out
Speaker 2: because of there being commonalities that there's therefore one lowest
Speaker 2: common denominator religion. And if you read the Garibie paper,
Speaker 2: he points out that if there's a lowest common denominator
Speaker 2: religion that is just the commonalities in these various so
Speaker 2: called monotheistic faiths or Abrahamic faiths, then that's actually a
Speaker 2: third other religion, right, that's not the other three you see,
Speaker 2: And that's all you can. You can prove that logically
Speaker 2: by a conjunct where you put, for example, in parentheses
Speaker 2: and logic you could say, we're gonna list, let's say,
Speaker 2: the beliefs of Orthodox Christianity that make Orthodoxy Orthodoxy, right,
Speaker 2: so that would be A would be the Trinity, B,
Speaker 2: Virgin Birth, C, you know, incarnation, D, Resurrection. Right, Let's
Speaker 2: say all of the beliefs that are necessary components of
Speaker 2: Orthodox Christianity. They're in these parentheses A, A, B, C,
Speaker 2: D Z. Right, if we take out Oh but wait
Speaker 2: a minute, one of those beliefs is that God's on mission,
Speaker 2: so maybe that's you know, G. Well, Jews and Muscles
Speaker 2: believe that God's on thisce, so they believe G. Right.
Speaker 2: But is G the same as the set that's up
Speaker 2: here in the parentheses. No, no, it's not. And even
Speaker 2: if I take elements out commonalities, it's not this set
Speaker 2: because this set is everything in totality. It's a total set.
Speaker 2: It's in the parentheses. And this is just logic showing
Speaker 2: that there's no such thing as a core religion that
Speaker 2: is the core of these three monotheistic abrahemit face. It's
Speaker 2: it's a simple it's a simple way in logic, in
Speaker 2: linguistic philosophy to show that this set is not this
Speaker 2: set merely because there's common things. Another point, too, is
Speaker 2: that he makes in the Garby paper and makes some
Speaker 2: really great examples or analogies to a card games. If
Speaker 2: I'm playing poker and then I'm playing, you know, crazy eights,
Speaker 2: does the fact that Poker and Crazy Eights use cards
Speaker 2: mean they're playing a same game the same game? No?
Speaker 2: Does the fact that there's cards and rules involved, mean
Speaker 2: that there's actually a common core game that's neither poker
Speaker 2: nor Crazy Eights. No, of course not, it's this nonsense, right.
Speaker 2: So in other words, the set of beliefs is going
Speaker 2: to determine the reference in the set. And that's why
Speaker 2: it's a holistic it's a whole systemic thing. And so
Speaker 2: the word God is in linguistic philosophy, it's known as
Speaker 2: a non rigid designator. And what we mean by that
Speaker 2: is that it's not a a personal pronoun. It doesn't
Speaker 2: pick out anything specific. Even in scripture, the word God
Speaker 2: just little case God. It could refer to the person
Speaker 2: of the Father. It could refer to the whole Trinity.
Speaker 2: It could refer to divine actions or attributes with the
Speaker 2: divine essence. It can refer to angels. Angels are called gods, Elohim,
Speaker 2: sons of God. It could refer to humans. I will
Speaker 2: make you as a god to Pharaoh, right, God says
Speaker 2: to Moses. And it could refer to us in deification.
Speaker 2: It could refer to demons, right, the gods of the nations.
Speaker 2: So the point here is that it's abatance witch the
Speaker 2: fact that the other religions use the word God or
Speaker 2: the word monotheism, or the word you know, whatever that's
Speaker 2: in common. We believe in an omniscient God. You believe
Speaker 2: in omnient God. So it's the same God. No, it's not,
Speaker 2: because the rest of the set of beliefs about our
Speaker 2: God is just as necessary as any single member of
Speaker 2: the set right. The Father is just as necessary as
Speaker 2: Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit is just as necessary as son,
Speaker 2: as as omniscience. You can't start just subtracting from them.
Speaker 2: And there's no argument to be made for some of
Speaker 2: God's attributes being more self evident than the others. They
Speaker 2: all go together. It's holistic. You don't like, learn the
Speaker 2: essence of God and then down the road like Tomism says,
Speaker 2: we'll tack on trinity, we'll tack on virgin birth. No,
Speaker 2: it all goes together, right, it's a set right.
Speaker 1: Just based on what you said, this idea, the sort
Speaker 1: of manipulation or the word concept fallacy, it almost feels
Speaker 1: like there's magical cannontations underneath this. Like I've spoken before
Speaker 1: that magic is all about the manipulation of language and meaning,
Speaker 1: which then alters people's perceptions of reality. And I can't
Speaker 1: help but think when we start looking at Catholic history,
Speaker 1: or you know, perennialism itself, this idea of the Abrahamic
Speaker 1: religions really all sort of saying the exact same thing.
Speaker 1: We can point back to the Iberian Peninsula in Spain
Speaker 1: with the Moorish occupation, where they allowed for all these
Speaker 1: mystical traditions to study each other and even smoke hashiesh
Speaker 1: coming out of Northern Africa. And then right after that
Speaker 1: we start looking at the fifteenth century, the fourteen hundreds.
Speaker 1: We get the Italian Renaissance, we get the translation of
Speaker 1: the Hermetic Corpus, we get Marcillo, Ficino, Giovanni, Picadella, Marindola,
Speaker 1: and we see magic, Chaldean oracles, Sufism, Kabbala, and Christian
Speaker 1: mysticism all come together in this sort of new understanding
Speaker 1: of what man is, of what religion is. And this
Speaker 1: is where the perennialism itself, if you're going to trace
Speaker 1: that idea really gets going, is the thirteenth century Spain,
Speaker 1: and Catholicism has really been associated with this concept ever since.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was going to bring up the Renaissance origins
Speaker 2: of Ahumanism. Actually because this is a more accurate thesis
Speaker 2: on the real origins of Ecumenisma way prior to Bodikan two. So,
Speaker 2: for example, if you read a Cult Renaissance Church of Rome,
Speaker 2: Hoffman shows in that book that the real origins of
Speaker 2: the ideas of a common root of the religions, a
Speaker 2: skeletal root religion that is neither Christianity nor Orthodo, nor
Speaker 2: Islam nor you know, Judaism, is itself a religious presupposition
Speaker 2: that comes out of philosophical schools. So it's kind of
Speaker 2: a neoplatonic approach, and it's an approach as you said
Speaker 2: that it gets adopted eventually by the perennial schools, which
Speaker 2: are really just borrowing from Neoplatonism to try to find
Speaker 2: the grand ultimate skeletal backbone of what the world religions are,
Speaker 2: which are just kind of masks. So the perennialist idea,
Speaker 2: which again is not new, it was already had and
Speaker 2: seed form by Neoplatonists, and then it's regurgitated by the
Speaker 2: neo platonic schools that really influence the people in the
Speaker 2: Italian Renaissance. It's just regurgitating things that had already been
Speaker 2: rejected in the first seven count So actually, if you read,
Speaker 2: for example, Myandor's book Business Ideology, there's a whole chapter
Speaker 2: on the rejection of Neoplatonism. And this is why you get,
Speaker 2: for example, the visiting Emperor Saint Justinian is the one
Speaker 2: who started closing down the Platonic Academy and these schools,
Speaker 2: because what happens is in the sonoticicon there's an explicit
Speaker 2: rejection of Platonism, Neoplatonism in this end, this idea which
Speaker 2: manifests in the chapter that he wrote called the It's
Speaker 2: about the humanists, the monastics and humanists, and so this
Speaker 2: eventually manifests is a warfare between neoplatonism. And this even
Speaker 2: gets into iconography because the iconoclass are actually rejecting iconography
Speaker 2: on neoplatonic grounds. They all have neoplatonic arguments. This comes
Speaker 2: up in St. Theodore the STUDEI. It's repeated in the
Speaker 2: Alspinsky Treatise with Theology the icon in the chapter on
Speaker 2: Gregory Palomos, because palam is them is what undergirds the
Speaker 2: affirmation of iconography. The energy's doctrine is crucial and fundamental
Speaker 2: to why we do iconography. It's the apologetic argument that
Speaker 2: they use. At the Seven Council. St. Theodore and Sat.
Speaker 2: John Damascus talk about the energies being the reason why
Speaker 2: iconography is useful, correct, important, pedagogical, and also mystical. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is why the Saints have a golden halo. It's
Speaker 2: because that's signifying the uncreated light. Icons themselves are teaching
Speaker 2: the essence energy doctrine. And so when we get to
Speaker 2: the Renaissance period, there's a rejection of that idea of
Speaker 2: icons and iconography having a specific liturgical setting and meaning
Speaker 2: and significance, and there's rubrics for how you do it.
Speaker 2: You don't do Chinese Jesus because Jesus wasn't Chinese. But
Speaker 2: we specifically see at the time of Charlemagne and after
Speaker 2: that's when the Western Church departs right in many ways
Speaker 2: from the liturgical norms and from the Seventh Council. The
Speaker 2: Romancalloy Church never has really accepted the actual teaching of
Speaker 2: the Seventh Ecumenical Council. They afferm it in principle, but
Speaker 2: for them, oh, that just means we can do Jesus
Speaker 2: art right, and you can do anything, so you can
Speaker 2: have God the Father as an old man. No, actually,
Speaker 2: the Seventh machemenical council says you cannot paint God the
Speaker 2: Father as an old man, and it says that's a
Speaker 2: heretical and idolatrous notion. No man has seen the Father
Speaker 2: at any time, Jesus says, and never will because the
Speaker 2: only icon of the Father is the person of the Son.
Speaker 2: The hypostasis of the son is the only icon of
Speaker 2: the Father. And so there can be symbolic representations of
Speaker 2: the Father in the sense of the three angels in
Speaker 2: the you know the famous a Braamic Rublev icon. There's
Speaker 2: a symbols that represent the Trinity. But we make it
Speaker 2: very clear if you read the later icon councils in Moscow,
Speaker 2: they they explicitly know that those icons are not portraying
Speaker 2: the person of the Father, right any more than the
Speaker 2: number three is like portraying the person of the Father.
Speaker 2: It's represents a symbolic it's what's called the idos of
Speaker 2: the icon, but it's not the hypostasis of the Father.
Speaker 2: And that's made very clear for a reason. Anyway, long
Speaker 2: story short is just that iconography Orthodox theology is very clear,
Speaker 2: very precise on these topics, and it is always stressed
Speaker 2: that as the nice in Crete says, the one God
Speaker 2: is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit principally right,
Speaker 2: when we begin our trinitary theology, it's the person of
Speaker 2: the Father. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, right,
Speaker 2: And then yes, I also affirm God from God like
Speaker 2: from Light, the Son, and the Spirit. Right. So one
Speaker 2: God can pick out different things. It can mean the person,
Speaker 2: the Father, it can mean the entire triad, It can
Speaker 2: mean the divine essence that they share. It can even
Speaker 2: pick out the attributes or energies that God has, because
Speaker 2: God is fully present in every energy. Sure, but the
Speaker 2: point is just that if we understood even just iconography itself. Right,
Speaker 2: And this is another point I'm gonna it's gonna come up,
Speaker 2: I'm sure in the debate in a few days with Trent,
Speaker 2: because we'll be debating this very topic. Is that you know,
Speaker 2: God for us has a specific reference and it means trinity. Right.
Speaker 2: It's it's the persons of the Trinity. There's no such
Speaker 2: thing as generic theism. Just even by linguistic philosophy, God
Speaker 2: is a non rigid designator doesn't tell you. So you're
Speaker 2: absolutely right that it's a kind of abate and switch.
Speaker 2: I don't know how self conscious the authors of the
Speaker 2: Vatican Two documents actually were, because some of this is
Speaker 2: really dumb and it's really low level argumentation, Like because
Speaker 2: they pray and because they you know, seek out things
Speaker 2: in their idolatriust religion, that therefore it's the same god
Speaker 2: as us. I mean, that's just not just non sequitors,
Speaker 2: that it's that it's our God.
Speaker 1: And do you think this emphasis on the like you said,
Speaker 1: the neoplatonic presupposition of the sort of skeletal schematical framework
Speaker 1: of all world religions and noise comes back to this
Speaker 1: unknown or transcendent one again relates to the ancient Greek
Speaker 1: problem of the one in the many, and this historical
Speaker 1: prevalence to privilege unity over multiplicity. And you see this
Speaker 1: in Tomism, you see this in absolute divine simplicity, in
Speaker 1: which you've talked about, uh, you know, at nauseum on
Speaker 1: yours on your channel. But Orthodoxy doesn't have this dialectical
Speaker 1: tension between multiplicity and unity, and therefore you actually find
Speaker 1: a balance, You actually find a harmony at an intellectual
Speaker 1: and an intellectrical intellectual, you know, theological level. There's a
Speaker 1: balance there. Do you think that this has any ties
Speaker 1: back to absolute divine simplicity.
Speaker 2: What absolutely does, and that's not anything that I came
Speaker 2: up with. In fact, countless Orthodox saints and theologians have
Speaker 2: been saying this for a long time. In fact, in
Speaker 2: the little book that's kind of the good if you
Speaker 2: want an introduction to this topic and what we're talking
Speaker 2: about here. I don't I don't affirm everything that that
Speaker 2: this author writes, but this book is really good, and
Speaker 2: it's called Church Papacy Schism by Philip Chrard, And really
Speaker 2: the whole thesis of this book is that the imbalance
Speaker 2: and the one the many is kind of what undergirds
Speaker 2: the Roman Catholic system. So papalism itself never could have
Speaker 2: really arisen if the pope didn't kind of arrogate himself
Speaker 2: to the office and roll of what the Holy Spirit does.
Speaker 2: So it's not accidental that the rise of the papal
Speaker 2: monarchy in the early Middle Ages is at the same
Speaker 2: time as a direct correlation, direct provable connection between that
Speaker 2: and the imbalance that occurs in the philioquy doctrine. The
Speaker 2: philioquy doctrine creates a diad And again I would just
Speaker 2: say read Saint Photius's mystigogy, because he says improves in
Speaker 2: about eighty pages that if you give the power in
Speaker 2: particular property of the person the father to the son,
Speaker 2: now you have a father son. Now you have a
Speaker 2: diad right, and that diad of father's son, which produces
Speaker 2: the third person, the father son. There that diad actually
Speaker 2: has a power of producing a person that the spirit lacks.
Speaker 2: So now, in this silly effort to try to prove
Speaker 2: the deity of the Christ against arianism, which is kind
Speaker 2: of the motivations of why the Philioque was rolled out
Speaker 2: to begin with, which is all kind of a mistake
Speaker 2: and a misunderstanding anyway, it really has the opposite effect
Speaker 2: of subordinating the spirit. So if the Holy Spirit is
Speaker 2: subordinated in the life of this institution, which is precisely
Speaker 2: what all of our saints and theologians said that the
Speaker 2: philioak we would do again, just read the mystagogy of
Speaker 2: Saint Photius. He said it would do that. And then
Speaker 2: what happens is that now we need a humanistic role
Speaker 2: for the Holy Spirit embodied in the person of the pope.
Speaker 2: Now the Pope is the voice of the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 2: The voice of God on Earth is no longer the immediate, innate,
Speaker 2: direct presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of
Speaker 2: the Church. It's now an extra juridical office that speaks
Speaker 2: in this way. And so the pope really becomes the
Speaker 2: bridge of the Philly okay now or the Holy Spirit
Speaker 2: comes into the church, he kind of replaces Christ in
Speaker 2: the economia. And that's the argumentation that that Charard makes,
Speaker 2: which I've always thought was a really really powerful argument,
Speaker 2: and it's and he makes the argument that it's on
Speaker 2: the basis of absolute divine simplicity that this even happened.
Speaker 2: I mean, Photius himself even says this that the simplicity
Speaker 2: doctrine that the Cappadocians and the Church adopted is not
Speaker 2: the simplicity doctrine that the West adopted. And so they
Speaker 2: even noticed that at the time. That's what undergirds the
Speaker 2: whole debate of the Phillyoquay, at the time of Photius
Speaker 2: and at the time of the Council Alliance, and when
Speaker 2: you read the Tomos of the Palomite Synods and the
Speaker 2: Palmite theology of that time, and the oppredicted treat use
Speaker 2: of Saint Gregory against the Latins. It's all saying what
Speaker 2: I'm saying. It's none of this stuff is like me
Speaker 2: making it so, it's just in these documents, very clear,
Speaker 2: very lucid logical presentation, by the way, which should show
Speaker 2: people that there's nothing antithetical to palamism and apologetics and logic.
Speaker 2: I mean, he's using Ariscotan logic. That's what the apedictic
Speaker 2: treatise means, right,