Speaker 1: Telling you that you've kind of figured out all the
secrets and you know you're the great uh, you know,
esoteric masters. It's just a delusion playing on our pride
as human beings to want to be kind of some
kind of special, you know, because of the matrix type
of person.
Speaker 2: When I always give these uh talks about demons and
I refer back to kind of folklore, whether it's rumpelstilt
Scan or.
Speaker 3: The Genie, the Jendni demon, they're.
Speaker 2: All throughout different cultures and stuff like that. It's always
this esotericism, right, you'll get this, you're the person that
And what do you notice in a lot of these
stories and in actual real cases too. For example, Alistair
Curley did he die smarter than ever with his mind
drug addict and a yeah, I've lost his mind. And
there's this devil's bargain right.
Speaker 1: All of his women three by the way, that half
of them ended up in insane asylums and committed suit
a lot.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: So this is kind of a sign of the demonic
right that these people are smart enough to crack the
code and figure this out of stade, what.
Speaker 3: Do they do? They end up losing their mind, So.
Speaker 2: The devil promises in this bargain, Oh you're the one.
Speaker 3: You're you look at your mind, how brilliant it is.
And in the bargain in the contract.
Speaker 2: When that you you play around with this, you actually
end up losing the one thing that you thought you were,
that you had and this that.
Speaker 1: Was so great. Yeah, you idolize your mind and your
IQ and your reasoning and your you know, powers of
mental faculties, you know, and then the bargain is that
that becomes your god and then you lose it.
Speaker 3: Yep, exactly.
Speaker 1: It's a really perceptive point. Yeah, so people in the
chat are asking, yes, we are talking about the tendency
of people in the domain of conspiracy, in the domain
of Gamatria online. You know, like when Jim Bob was
debating that Gamatria guy, that was just crazy and it's
like it's number one, it's a con man system. Like
that guy seemed like a conman because he was just
like telling everybody to go buy his course on how
to predict the future and win and like win the
lottery through Gamatria. But to the people who buy into it,
a lot of those people are you know, potentially also
dealing with perhaps some kind of mental issue, like like
father Deacon's talking about Lord of the Nerds. Five dollars,
says Stitch Adam in short, fat, I'll tak you. I
don't know who that is. Reviewed your debate. They said
that you embarrassed philosophy because no one cares about a pistemology.
Father Deacon, you're a professor of a pistemology and logic.
Is it true that no one cares about a pistemology
As a philosophy professor.
Speaker 2: I was trying to keep that hidden.
Speaker 3: I didn't want anybody to find that out.
Speaker 1: Well, you're gonna get fired now because you've been You're
a fraud. You're gonna get defrocked. You're gonna get defrocked
from philosophy because you you teach a discipline that is no.
Speaker 2: Longer told everybody that everybody cared about epistemology, and that's
why I actually have a job teaching a pistemology in
this guymore Man, Well it was a good run, lads.
Speaker 1: Time to pack it up. Go back to uh. I
don't know what you used to do. Used to be
a skateboarder or a skier. Maybe you can be a
professional skier because it's over for you.
Speaker 3: I used to be a professional.
Speaker 2: Clown, rodeo clown, a roller.
Speaker 1: Roller blade clown. Is that is that on the totem
pole of clown dum? Is that above or below a
rodeo clown.
Speaker 3: Had jenco pants and it was a clown on roller blades?
Speaker 1: But is that?
Speaker 3: I was like the epitome of the nineties. I feel
like you could imagine.
Speaker 1: Okay, but is that above or below a rodeo clowne
in the clown hierarchy.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's a great question, only if we had an
epistemologist to answer it.
Speaker 3: Huh. I guess we'll never know anything. I don't know,
like I've never looked.
Speaker 2: Epistemology is a pretty big field in you know, look, yeah,
it doesn't exist.
Speaker 3: There's two streams.
Speaker 2: Possibly three, in philosophy, continental that deals with phenomenology, existentialism.
Speaker 3: And that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: Then you have analytic philosophy, which deals with philosophy of language,
philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and uh logic.
Speaker 3: Then the possible third could just be uh a history
of philosophy. Usually ancient philosophy will.
Speaker 2: Go in there. Those are the main stream, the two
biggest streams are just continental and analytics. Among analytic, which
is definitely the dominant school in the United States and
the UK. Ireland, epistemology is huge, So yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Where supposedly, although again, do you have a source for
that or is that just all ad hoc from you?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you got gosh, you can expose me.
Speaker 1: You are done for it, Stan Patron five pounds, Jay,
I learned more here than anywhere else. You helped to
get me out of perennialism and degenerously. Thank you, brother,
hey man, that's great to hear. I hope you're moving
in the direction of orthodoxy. Suki for all five This
is for your foot farts. Yes they were foot farts.
I promise I can keep I can keep mimicking them,
unless you think that I can just rip it on command.
Yon Quantum Yakoub two dollars. That was an uncreative foot fart. Correct,
it was lazy eyes became a member, Daniel became a member.
G twenty six says I lost it, Jay, God blessed.
Keep doing your thing and shut down all these haters.
Thanks man, appreciate that. Otis Solier five dollars. Did you
see Albert talking to doctor Joshua on the Trinity. I
did not would you do a review on that? I
don't know. Adam Crazy five Bucks, the lawyer to Orthodox
pipeline Israel. Yeah, shout out to Adam the thank you
for the law bro shout out there. Yeah, you're welcome.
Of course, that's you are who I had in mind.
I enjoy I enjoyed all your West Coast podcast tour. Well,
guess what, the meat of it hasn't even come out yet.
The full four hour Ruslon debate hasn't come out, and
the Hodge Twins hasn't come out, and both of those
are bangers, so the real heat hasn't come yet. Valerian
since twenty runs. Thank you Steve mcloven five dollars. Do
you think Mohammed or a companion saw an icon of
Jesus with a book and took it literal? You know what?
It could be something like that. I mean that you
might be joking, but it literally could be something like
because you know, people think he was influenced by a
Nestorian monks and maybe the Mystorian monks told him. You know, oh,
those Orthodox are apostates. Look at the pictures they have,
and you know, maybe he saw a picture of Jesus
with the Gospels or something and he thought that that
was the ngeal that came down Like that's actually pretty
good because Mohammed was unlettered, right, So he probably did
see an icon and just derived his ideas from that.
Nick twenty bucks, I'm a Protestant here. I love your videos.
I have a question if the Orthodox Church interprets scripture,
who interprets the Orthodox Church's decrees? So again, like we
were saying earlier, to the guy they called the reformed
guy they called it in at the beginning, we don't
make I don't make the argument that the Roman Catholic
apologists do that just appealing to the papacy gives you
this certainty. All of us are in the same boat.
We're all going to have to do the work of interpreting.
The difference between us and the papists or whoever is
that Number one. We have different means that we think
the script that the spirit's using, we think it's the
Council's teaching to the church fathers, experience of the liturgy,
et cetera, et cetera, as well as the Bible. If
you're a Roman Catholic, at the end of the day,
it's you interpreting the papal magisterium. And if you're a Protestant,
at the end of the day, it's you and the
Holy Spirit and the scriptures. So it's not a question
of an infinite regression of interpretation. That's the way that
Roman Catholic pop apologists usually frame this debate in a
very low tier bad way, and that's why many Protestants
come asking us. I'm not faulting you for asking this question, Nick,
it's a fair question. Many Protestants ask us this question
because they've only heard bad Roman Catholic arguments that, well,
you don't have a pope. We have the pope, so
we have certainty. The pope doesn't give you a certainty
if you listen to that guy that we heard the
other day, or or the cal guy Angelo. I put
it on my clips channel. This guy right here, he
literally goes back and forth contradicting himself like twenty times
in sixteen minutes on the very point that you're asking.
And so if any Protestant says, hey, this is an
inconsistent argument from Roman Catholics, I will agree with you.
That doesn't make me Protestant. I'm agreeing with the argument. Right,
Come on.
Speaker 2: Both of those positions, because Roman Catholic and Protestant have
the same position, they just go different directions from the presupposition.
They're both thoroughly reductive, right, so they believe they can
reduce an epistemic question to one principle, whereas we would say,
kato holos, it's the whole thing. Number two of I
said this too. Both are thoroughly modern. They have this
kind of Cartesian obsession with absolute certitude infallibility. What's the question?
Can I know that orthodoxy is true or dogmatic? You
don't have to have.
Speaker 3: A Cartesian strong theory.
Speaker 2: Of knowledge to be like, why have to eliminate every possibility?
Speaker 3: My justification has to be induble, clear and distinct. That's insane.
Nobody even holds that in epistemology or philosophy because.
Speaker 2: Of what you just pointed out. You wouldn't be able
to know anything if you have that high standard. So
I don't know why, I.
Speaker 3: Mean I do.
Speaker 2: It's important to point out both those groups are obsessed
with some type of Cartesian certitude of infallibility, but for
some for most of us, would accept that knowledge just has.
Speaker 3: To be is it true?
Speaker 2: Do I believe it's true? And do I have sufficient
justification for it? Not infallible? Now, of course we have
a level of infallibili and orts doox.
Speaker 3: But been noticed we're not obsessed with that.
Speaker 2: It's not how do I know absolutely for certain unless
I eliminate every possibility and have a Cartesian and dubability
and can defeat the evil demon deceiving me in a multiverse?
Speaker 3: Were like, it's a total insanity, right and totally modern.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think one of the streams x spaces that
you and I were doing when I was on the road,
you had a really good comment on that, how rem
Catholicism is very close to that kind of Cartesian idea
of getting absolute certitude for doctrines. And what's funny is
that the way that they think they do it is
by appealing to this external juridical office called the papacy.
And it's like, do you understand that from a practical perspective,
you're in an even worse position than a Protestant because
a Protestant it's like them in the Bible, which is
what a few thousand pages, but as a Roman Catholic
gets you in like thousands of pages of papal documents.
It's even more more stuff that you kind of try
to actually.
Speaker 3: Have the Protestant actually has the upper hand.
Speaker 1: Yeah, in regard to the like on the grounds like
who has more work to do. It's like it's just
such a silly position that it's missing the epistemic point.
But to your point there, Nick, what I would say
is that all of us, at the end of the
day are relying on the Holy Spirit to guide us
for individual certainty. But we disagree on the means that
the Holy Spirit uses, which we just discussed. And then lastly,
the big difference is what's called normive authority. Normativity is
when you can say that there's an ought right, you
ought to do this versus that. And in this case,
the context is referring to a historical body of people
with Norman authority. If you're a Protestant, you don't believe
in that, Okay. The Classical Reformation is very adamant, very clear.
All the Reformers, as far as I'm aware, teach that
nobody has the authority to bind anyone's conscience to their interpretation,
even a presbyter, even a reformer can't bind you to
his interpretation in terms of moral authority and in other words,
like if you don't believe in the Westminster Confessions interpretation,
you are excommunicated, you're out of the church. That doesn't
exist in Protestanism because it's built on write a private interpretation,
freedom of conscience, freedom of worship. Okay, if you read
nic Nicia doesn't work that way. Nicia is very clear
that either you interpret the text of Scripture Affanatius, et
cetera and Homousius to mean that Jesus is fully divine,
or you're with Arias and you're excommunicated from the church.
You're out of here. So that's the difference normative authority,
not the question of how do we get individual certitude?
Bird created by Jesus became a member. How would you
reply to this Protestant argument church history is not trustworthy
because the church wrote history and they protected themselves. Well,
the first thing I said, and all that Father Deacon
comments on it, is that's an assertion. So to say
something like we cannot church trust church history because they
wrote it, well, they who? And on what grounds is
that reason to distrust it? So, first of all, it's
just an assertion. It's not actually argument. It's a claim.
It's not an argument, Father Deacon, what would you say, Well.
Speaker 2: It's at atheist like ridiculous standard. For example, you have
the apostles as the eyewitnesses of the resurrection at you.
Speaker 3: Know, and they're like, well, that doesn't count because they're biased.
Speaker 2: We have to find somebody that witnessed an event that
would convert you, who yet don't believe. And so I'm like, well,
this is just a category era. That's like saying I
got this mathematition detic hid of it, but he has
this really amazing kind of mathematical conclusion about completing the
number line between rational and irrational numbers, known as the
detic line cut.
Speaker 3: Obviously he's not trustworthy Jay, because he's a mathematician.
Speaker 2: So I need to establish that mathematical conclusion.
Speaker 3: From somebody who isn't that master. Do you see the problem?
Speaker 1: That's a great point. I was not aware. I've never
heard that before.
Speaker 3: So that's what they're asking.
Speaker 2: It's like, of course, it's going to be the people
who are immersed in the community who are of that
you know, specialization. I want to talk about higher textual
criticism too, because this is the kind of thing that
higher textual critics kind of use it. We'll just treat
this thing as like anything else. But they're inconsistent. They
don't so any other text like Tacitus or anything like that.
If an individual is are real, they don't just simply
historians look at the book.
Speaker 3: They'll actually take the evidence from the community.
Speaker 2: And history around those and the traditions as part of
the evidence unless proven otherwise. Oh no, no, no, but not
with the church, right, So all for me, none for
the fallacy. So there's a real inconsistency, yes, And categorically
that's exactly the sort of evidence that you would want
is from the people who preserve were part of the
community who.
Speaker 3: Wrote the text, right, who were eyewitnesses. So it doesn't
even make sense.
Speaker 2: It's like saying, I need a non mathematician to give
me to believe in mathematical conclusion, because mathematicians.
Speaker 3: Are biased, exactly, they believe in numbers. We need to
find somebody who doesn't believe in numbers to give me
a man.
Speaker 1: That's the only way. How do you know that objectivity
is just from the camp that doesn't believe in it too,
that's exactly the atheist motivation too, Right, It's like I
can only trust somebody who has the atheist presuppositions. Well,
that's just kind of poisoning the well and kind of
waiting the debate for your side from the outset. And
that's why it's important. You know, a lot of times
people don't just appeal to church historians. So for example,
one of the reasons that the patristic writers who end
up being heretics or who are historians or whatever outside
the Church, they're still relevant because they attest to and
become evidences for the Orthodox position the history of the church,
et cetera. Right, Tourtullian is still very valuable. Origin is
very valuable, Eusebius is very valuable. Even though they're not
Orthodox fathers and they're not saints and they're heterodox, they're
still very relevant as well as quote secular historians throughout
that time period too. So no, it's not just relying
on you know, apologists of the church to know church history.
There are other sources outside of the church as well.
Now the next question is I'm assuming, due to doctor
Joshua's debate or discussion with Albrich, I've not heard this yet.
I don't know all of doctor Joshua's position. What I
know and what I promote is doctor Branson's position, which
is the Orthodox position. So when people ask about monarchical trinitarianism,
everyone needs to go watch doctor Branson's lectures before you
start trying to argue with it or debate it, or
you're going to misunderstand it. Now, not talking to you,
Let's talk God. When you sent the superched it's a
great question. Can you break down the notion of Jesus
being God by predication or by identity? Why do we
make this distinction so monarchical trinitarianism. If you start with
his lecture here, doctor Branson's going to explain that in
the early Church are particularly in the Creed and in
the Cappadocians, and that's what matters the most, because for
the Trinity constantin up On one is pretty much the
church's dogmatizing of the doctrine of the Trinity, and that's
all Cappadocian theology. In fact, the council actually stated, or
the Emperor at the council said, everyone has to agree
with Nissa's formulation or you're not Orthodox. That's constantinople ones mindset,
and so that mindset is what's called monarchical trinitarianism. Just
like the Creed, it says we believe in one God,
the Father. When we use that term the one God,
we are primarily picking out the person of the Father.
It is not primarily referring to the common divine essence.
And this is a pretty big distinction between the Orthodox
conception of the Trinity and the Tomistic conception of the Trinity.
I would typically say Roman Catholicism in general, at least
pretty much dogmatically if you look at the Fourth Lattering Council,
because it uses the Lombard definition of simplicity, which is
essentially kind of an essentialist, reductionist position identity thesis. It's
called versus you know the Uniates, right, So the Uniates,
which are very much a minority, would probably agree with
the Orthodox on this. So you can't technically say that
every single Roman Catholic has this essentialist Thomistic model, but
at least dogmatically. Officially, for the most part, ninety nine
percent of Romantholicism is not monarchical trinitarianism. So they get
hung up on things like does Jesus derive his divinity,
and does he depend on the Father for his hypostasis
and his uh, for his divinity, for his essence, And
the answer is yes. In fact, it's not just nicea
that teaches. It's not just constant noble, it's nicea one
that teaches that the son depends on the Father for
his existence and for his essence and for his hypostasis
to the whole of the son. The totality of the
son is dependent on the Father. And it's a Muslim
argument to think that because there's dependence, that they're therefore
they are not all God. This is called the Eunomian premise.
And if you watch the debate between Jake and doctor Branson,
doctor Branson shows through a logic table that Jake is
using a fallacy, and Jake eventually just melts down and
loses it right. He totally flounders loses the debate because
you can't demonstrate that to be amongst the class of
things called God or uncreated, you must possess a sayety
or that you cannot come from another. It's just like
every time we do this analogy, I'm hoping people can
understand it. You can be a carnivore and you can
be an omnivore. Right, they are both amongst the class
of things that eat meat, but one of them has
additional properties of not just eating meat, but also eating vegetables.
But if you are a omnivore, you are also a carnivore.
So omnivore and carnivore are under the class of things
that quote eat meat. Even though the one, the omnivore,
has more things that it eats, has more properties and
traits than the carnivore, it doesn't mean that because the
carnivore lacks what the omnivor has, it's therefore not amongst
the class of meat eaters. It's a very simple, once
again grammar argument, and when you listen to doctor Branson's lectures,
he will actually go into grammar. A lot of these
issues are mistakes that are made in grammar. So likewise,
when it comes to Mormon excuse mean Muslims in the Trinity,
they try to argue that the word God can only
have one reference, It can only refer to the divine essence.
But the word God refers to, at least in the
Cappadocian theology, almost entirely the Father. Does that mean the
Son isn't divine, or isn't quote God, or isn't fully
whatever in terms of nature. No, because he derives his
existence his person is entire hypostasis from the Father. It
does not follow that he's Onto logically subordinate. And to
prove that you have to prove this point about the
logic table that the Unomian premise that that Jake tries
to prove to doctor Branson that somehow to be God
necessarily in the definition of God is a sayity, and
that's not true because the Son does not possess a saiety.
He is from another I think it's Oration twenty three
of Saint Gregor now Sandras, where he says this exact
same thing. So they're getting hung up on words, and
they think that because primarily we use the term God
to refer to the hypostasis of the Father, that somehow
that makes the Son onto logically subordinate, when the irony
is that it's actually Roman Catholics that subordinate the Holy
Spirit through the Doctor of the Philioque, because they give
a power to the Father and the Son that the
Spirit lacks, so ironically, theirs is the position that is subordination.
So hopefully that helps once again to clear up this
point that always comes up between Muslims and Roman Catholics.
On I think between the Muslim and the Roman Catholic
there's a similar mistake that's being made that they think
that a word necessarily contains the ontological baggage that one
context of that word has. So if God is ever
used to refer to the entire triad, then God must
always and forever be a reference to the common divine essence,
And it's just simply not. In fact. In the Creed,
we believe in one God, the Father. In other words,
one God is picking out or referring to the person
of the Father in the Creed, not to the essence.
Even though the Son has the same essence as the Father,
he does not have the same role as the Father.
The Father in Cappadocian theology is the fount, the source,
the cause, the ark, the one ark, the an ark.
Those are all terms that Basil uses to pick out
the hypostasis of the Father. He is the unoriginate one.
Gregory Nazi Andrews calls the Son the original one, and
by extension, the Spirit is also originate. Both have their
origin in the person of the father's essence, not in
the common essence, the father's essence. The son springs forth
from the father's essence. That's very important. In Trinitarian theology,
we do not begin to attribute generation and procession to
the common essence, even though Aquinas does that, even though
many Roman Catholics do that, that's actually false. Nicea. One
is very clear that the Father generates a son according
to his essence, and that means, as Jesus says, everything
that he has he has from the Father, and by extension,
obviously the spirit too. Everything the Spirit has he has
from the Father through the son. And that does not
make the son a cause or a source of the
spirits hypostasis or essence, merely because he proceeds through him.
In fact, that's what the tomos against John Beco's is about.
So hopefully that helps clear things up. Ai angel I
forgot about you. Thank you for being patient, Go ahead.
Speaker 3: No problem.
Speaker 4: Once again, incredible impression pulled out of nowhere from Jay
Arsenal's Jay Dire's Arsenal of Impressions.
Speaker 3: Jordan Maxwell, that's great.
Speaker 1: Are you saying that there are no tarra doctyles over
Los Angeles?
Speaker 5: I was gonna ask you, I actually saw that before
I passed away, I saw a Tara doctyle flying over
my house in Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, I was.
Speaker 4: Asking you to explain the Hypostasius or something. This is unnecessary.
I was raised Protestant, did a dispensationalism detox. Over the
past few years came to be a pretty comprehensive critic
of that system. And now I'm an Orthodox choir and
I just want to say thanks for everything you do.
Speaker 3: So odd all question, how does sin work if.
Speaker 4: We get the effects of sin, such as death, but
not a sin nature, like, how do we end up
being sinful? Like from what seems to be the very
outset if it's not in our nature because obviously it's
not like in our dna, our genes. It's not a
spirit that passes through the umbilical cord or anything, right right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, So the way we would say that the effects
of Adam sin pass on to all of his descendants,
but not the personal guilt. So for us, guilt or
sin is always a specific action, right. James says that desire,
when it is consented to it gives birth to sin.
So the desires themselves, the passions themselves are not even sin.
Sin is literally just the concession of the will or
the acquiescence of the will too, an action that's against
God's law or the tank commandments, the moral law, et cetera.
That's what a sin is. And so what we get
from Adam is a nature that is out of whack.
It is mortal, It is liable to fluctuation and failing
and deviation, but it's not itself evil. There's no such
thing as an evil nature because everything that has nature,
or has being, or has existence is something that God created, right,
and when God created he said it is good. So
there could never be such a thing as an evil
nature or an evil essence or evil being. And that's
why evil is always a privation. And in this case,
moral evil is an action of the will against the good.
So that's in every case what evil is. Even your sin,
you don't have Adam's sin in terms of guilt or
in terms of personal actual sin. You have the effects
of adam sin that by the time you become you
know of the age of consent or whatever you And
I don't mean that in the sexual sense. I mean
the age of consent in terms of when you become
a reasoning a person who's guilty of moral reasoning and
then violating that moral reasoning. You know, it could be
different for different people.
Speaker 3: Excellent when it comes up damaged.
Speaker 4: So the damaged human nature, in tandem with the fallen
world around us, facilitate the conditions for us to choose
to use our free will in a sinple way.
Speaker 1: But we also do have within us what Paul calls
a law of sin. It's not literally a law of sin.
He's talking about our passions being out of whack, right,
And so, you know, take the desire for food. The
desire for food is a blameless passion. There's nothing wrong
with it. God put us, put that in us, and
even after the fall, it's a good thing, so that
we sustain our life, our body. But when I get
overly indulged and I commit the sin of gluttony, I'm
over indulging a passion that is itself good, But I'm
because I'm fallen. I sometimes give in to the passions,
and thus the passions are innocence out of whack. Does
that make sense?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: And obviously this is an anthropological thing that has through
this Christology too, which is why I started looking so
critically at the notion of sin nature and everything you
talk about referencing Saint Maximus is an amazing like system
of logic gets that reinforce, and in a way, I
kind of think of it as a Rupert's drop. You know,
you can have this surface area around the end of
it that is so impenetrable, but then if you go
back to the tail, the very tip end of it,
the core of it, and anything there is fragmented, the
whole thing shatters. So would you say Christ had the
passions and he may have felt a like would he
have experienced the inward like.
Speaker 1: No, actually a great question. I'm glad you brought this
up because it's ad Elascium. I think it's either twenty
three or twenty five. But if you have the Little
Blue Saint Vladimir's Seminary Book of Maximus, there's a really
important section in there on this question. And we believe
that Jesus did not have the blameful passions, so he
did not contract anything to do with ancestral original sin
from Adam, because he's born of the Virgin and he's
born in the Holy Spirit, so he's the new atom.
But he willfully took on the blame less passions and
mortality in order to save our human nature. So this
is a great point in this why Maximus makes a
distinction between the blame full passions and the blameless passions.
So Christ had the latter and not the.
Speaker 3: Former blame less passions.
Speaker 1: Okay, So that would be like like Christ got tired,
Christ hungered, he got thirsty, He in the garden. In
the garden, he desired not to die. Right, let this
cut pass from me, yet not my will, But I
will be done, say Maximus says. That is him submitting
his natural desire to not die, which is a good
and healthy thing. It's a blameless passion. But Jesus did
not have lust or gluttony or anything like that.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: And then clarification on a similar thing, he assumed what
he came to redeem on the cross. And so by
assuming to blame less passions.
Speaker 3: How does that buy?
Speaker 4: And I still have learning to do in regards to
like how legalistic were No, if you're doing, great thing
on the cross occurred.
Speaker 1: Right, this is those are great questions. I'll tell you
where to read about that too. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: So how does dying on the cross with the blameless
passions paid vote, I guess pay the price, or maybe
that's still a misconception I need to get out of
my system. The courtroom transactional type view of.
Speaker 1: It, Well, that's all right. So the courtroom transactional side
of it is just one side of it. By the way,
it's at the lassium twenty one. So if you have
the Little Blue Saint Vladimir's book, I'll to get this.
It's called on the Cosmic Mystery of Christ. And then
if you go to page one O nine is called
Christ's uh, Christ's Conquest of the human Passions at the
lassium twenty one if you had if you have added
the lastium, and you can also just look up a
paragraph twenty one. But so this whole chapter is about
Christ conquering the blameless passions, such as the desire for food,
the desire for sleep, et cetera. Saint Cyril says that
when Christ was resurrected, he transcended even the blameless passions,
and so the human nature that he assumed it didn't
even require food, it didn't require sleep, it didn't require
water anymore. But he willed to take on those things
in his incarnation to heal the totality of our nature.
So by partaking in his deified human nature, his perfected
and healed human nature, it becomes the medicine for our
fallen human nature. And that's in turn what deifies us.
So in regard to what's happening on the cross, if
you read John Damascus's book on the Orthodox Faith, Book three,
and it's the last four or five paragraphs, he does
probably one of the best expositions of what exactly is
happening on the cross. And separate from that, I would
get the Pomazansky book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. And I thank
you for your question, because in the Pomazanski book there's
the chapter I have two copies. Let me say, I
don't have a copy here, it's at the other place.
But there's a chapter on the deacon so Tirrikos and
the controversy or the section of whole chapter. But it's
the controversy over what happened in the offering of Christ,
and it will discuss this controversy. That's very good for
refuting kind of the prostant idea of PSA from the
Orthodox perspective, and for us, the liturgy refutes it, not
just to the liturgy. The liturgy reflects what's in the scriptures,
but it deals with the question of what's being offered
in the eucharistic offering. Is the offering of the person
of the Son to the Father, which would be kind
of an Enselmian position and Selms of toonement theory, Or
is the person of the son offering the human nature
in a fully triadic way to the Father in the spirit.
Of course, the answer is that it's the latter, the Son,
as the divine person of the Word, the second person
in trinity, is offering the deified human nature to the
Father in the spirit. So it's a triadic action, and
it is not just an action of one person to
another in the Trinity, nor is it just the son
paying a debt to the Father, because this council, this
Byzantine sonnot also reaffirms that there's no creature that could
pay God. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills.
How could a created thing pay off God? And that
right there destroys the whole psa Protestant imputational theory. The
infinite God can't be paid off by a human nature,
so it is an action of love when the son
offers his humanity to the father in the spirit. Let's see,
we'll try to move on here, Layman.
Speaker 3: Hey ajay was going on.
Speaker 6: First off, I just want to say that I've been
Orthodox for about two months so far. I started my
uh my inquiry process just over a year ago, and
you were one of the creators.
Speaker 3: That actually helped me with that.
Speaker 1: So first off, I just want to thank you for that.
Speaker 6: And then the second thing that I was going to
ask is a question about apologetics in regards to the
Council of Florence. So from what I understand from like
reading into the Council, because I'm getting into sort of
like Catholic apologetics and trying to understand their position, is
they like to utilize Saint Maximus. The confessors let t
Marinus as sort of like a oh, look, there's an
Eastern father that supports our view of the philioqua.
Speaker 1: Hold on, hold on, before we go any further, Maximus
is not supporting their view of the filio. Okay, first
of all, because Maximus says, why don't we grant them
the bend for the doubt? Because they might mean economia
As this doctrine gets formulated in the west of the
Council of Lions. They dogmatically state, no, it does not
mean economia. It actually means, as Augustine says, and on
the trinity, double eternal hypostatic procession and origin. So the
letter to Mourhinus really isn't even relevant anymore because the
debate progresses after Maximus to be a dogmatized filioqui position.
But in terms of Florence, if I recall, doesn't didn't
the Latins at Florence not even want to use the
letter to Morhus.
Speaker 6: So from what I've read, I came to figure out
that there were some Latin delegates.
Speaker 3: But there's a couple of names.
Speaker 6: So the first one is Cardinal Julian Cicerini, and then
there is a theologian called John of Torquemada, and they
explicitly invoked Maximus Confessor's letter to sort of argue their position.
And their position was that Maximus said that from the
that the Latins were not heretical if when they say
from the sun they mean through the sun, which is
what the Latins argued as proof that.
Speaker 1: The Yeah, but that's not referring to double eternal hypostatic procession,
which is what accounts of Lions and Florence define and
that's why the Orthodox response to that argument is the
tunmost against John Becos, because that's what the whole issue
is with Becos. Okay, have you read that yet?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 3: Actually, no.
Speaker 6: What I was going to ask you was sort of like,
if there were any sort of like apologetics books like
Church Fathers that I can read up onto further support.
Speaker 1: Yes. So this is actually from the book that I
highly recommend, Crisis and Byzantium by Papadoccus, And it's about
the the not just blacker name, but also the theology
of Gregory Cyprus. And there's a section in there that's
called the Tomos. It's a famous document called the Tomos
against John Beco's. Becos was a Latinizer who wanted to
make this argument, and the Byzantine response is to reject
it because it's not a question of whether you can
use the term through the sun. It's a question of
does lions do lions in Florence go beyond that and
say that the son is also a co cause with
the Father? And the answer is, of course yes. So
the Byzantine Church said, no, we reject this line of
argument from John.
Speaker 3: Becos, Right, Yeah, I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I just wanted to sort of like get more
like clarification on that This.
Speaker 1: Book right here is this book right here is highly
highly necessary for this debate crisis in Byzantium by Papadocus.
It's a very important book. And this section that you
can read online un tilmost against John Becos, I'm pretty
sure it's it's just a chapter from this book.
Speaker 3: Okay. I appreciate that.
Speaker 6: The second thing I was gonna say is when they
when they say, oh, well, like most of the like
most of the Eastern bishops were, we're at Florence and
they signed it, and there was only one and that
was Saint Mark of Ephesus. Like they sort of use
that as like a majority, and.
Speaker 1: That's there that it's not like so what it's first
of all, it's not all of them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So let me just list this argument is from
coming up lately. Oh you agreed with the Council of
Florence and you're.
Speaker 3: You're held to it. No, we're not, like that's your
mate up standard right, And I.
Speaker 2: Would say there's several necessary conditions.
Speaker 3: There could be more, but.
Speaker 2: First of all, it has to for a council would
be binding and infallible. It has to be true number one.
If it's false, it's not binding. Number two, the entire
Omanian has to be represented. And uh, and so there's
a lot of robber councils in which it's not like,
for example, the Council Herrera, which is the iconoclast. Number three,
the bishops have to universally agree because that's the calos.
So the representative of Alexandria was the same mark of Ephesus.
He didn't agree, so it's not universal. And number four
it has to be received by the church.
Speaker 3: And all those are at least So I don't understand
whether like, well, it's.
Speaker 1: Because theation no. Well, they think that the Orthodox perspective
is that we have five heads and the Roman Church
has one head, and so four of the five heads
accept it, then it's true. Yeah. But if you notice
in the debate with Ubian Voice of Reason, Voice of
Reason admitted that the decision of a leegate isn't binding,
It isn't equivalent to the actual bishop accepting it. So
if the league gates come back to their homes and
the bishops reject it, that destroys the entire Florence argument.
Speaker 3: Yes, exactly, thanks to right.
Speaker 6: Yeah, So usually what I would say, like like I
would just ask if this is like a fine like
counter so like to counter that, I would just reference
like Father don Ias was saying, like robber councils, like
in ecumenical history, where for example, like the Council of
Ephicism four to forty nine, it had like episcopal signatures
and imperial backing, but it failed because ultimately the majority
in the authority doesn't determine.
Speaker 3: Truth, like he was saying. So I just kind of
wanted to do this well.
Speaker 1: But also there's a notion of reception theory in Orthodoxy
and in Catholicism, and like UBI always points out, like
the same ideas in Orthodoxy that just because this or
that bishop or patriarch or emperor accepts something doesn't mean
that it's therefore true or binding. It has to be
received by the rest of the church. So, for example,
one reason that the Palamite Synods, even though they were
local Byzantine synods, are quote authoritative for the Orthodox, is
that they've been accepted throughout the entire canonical Orthodox world.
I'm not aware of any Orthodox churches that reject the
Palomite Synods. So you see how like the logic is
the same, like if the Palomite Synods that happened, and
like the rest of the Orthodox world rejected it. The
same principle applies to Florence, like even if you had
heretical patriarchs accepting it, like there's nothing about patriarch is
a canonical title right that it arises there's there's five
of them, what by I don't know the six or
seven hundreds. I think it's this by this time of
Gregory the Great Ish that from the time of Vigilius
to Gregory the Great, Rome even eventually accepts that there's
five patriarchis. So it's an evolving canonical thing, and it's
there's nothing about that that necessarily makes it true or
false just because two or three or four or perhaps
if you could, you could argue even five of them.
Now UBI might be of the position that five of
them makes it binding. Maybe he has an argument that
I'm not aware of. I think you could even debate
that because the you know, there was there weren't five
patriarchates at the time of Nicea, and yet Nicea is
still binding. So you see what I'm saying. It's like
it's just because something develops canonically, it doesn't somehow make
it like the thing that tells you truth, like a
papal position.
Speaker 3: All right, thanks you. Chris's reason.
Speaker 1: Truly he is. I was looking for this astro my book.
There's a book that David pointed out a long time ago.
I think I have it somewhere, but I don't see it.
Speaker 3: Huh, what's the name of the author.
Speaker 1: I might have it Ostromov on Florence ost r u
m Ov.
Speaker 3: No, I have another book if he is on Byzantine.
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, that's a great point.
Speaker 3: Why would.
Speaker 2: Why would the number guarantee the truth shouldn't be the
other way around. The truth guarantees and it's manifests through
the number.
Speaker 1: Well, I think a lot of Roman collies they actually
think that that we have five heads and they just
have one. And so somehow I guess if there's three
or four out of the five. But again, like it
wasn't it was just the league gates and then when
they went when the leagueates went back, it was rejected.
So there goes that argument. I think they just are
really desperate grasping it any kind of argument. You know
what I mean, Luca? I know I have the Ostrom
book here somewhere. What's up, man, gotta U mute, Luca? Hey,
what what's up?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 7: I I was just looking into, like like you know,
early Islam. I was looking into Muhammad, and I was
also looking into Do you know about the Typing rebellion
in China?
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 7: Well, basically it was so there was this Protestant I
think Reformed missionary went to China and the and the
evangelizing people can across the sky Hong Xu Huan or something.
And basically what happened is he this Chinese dude who
led the rebellion, he experienced visions and stuff before he
was converted to Christianity and or to Protestantism, and he
basically I was thinking, this is like the perfect I
haven't really explained it enough. Basically what happened is he
experienced insane visions supposedly, and and and he thought he
was like going to destroy all the he was he
was saying he was going to destroy all the demons
in China and stuff. So he thought he was like
he also said that he was I can't just I
can't discuss this properly.
Speaker 3: He was saying.
Speaker 1: He was, so, are you saying that, like he believed
that through these visions that he was ordained to like
convert China out of you know, paganism into Protestantism, and
that this would disprove like the Roman Catholic reliance on visions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, And he had.
Speaker 7: He had the visions before he even read any Christian stuff.
So so before he had even talked to any of
the missionaries, he he already had these visions. And then
he got a got a hold of like some of
the Gospel and stuff like this, and he then thought
he was like the mystical descendant of the Father and
all this insane stuff. And he led a rebellion in
like the eighteen sixties, and he like the war killed
like sixty million Chinese people. And this was like some
American What was he the guy who evangelized him. He
was like some American. It was an American missionary of Protsantism.
Speaker 1: But I forgot which, Okay, well, what's this guy's name
one more time, we'll look him up.
Speaker 3: Hong Zu. I'll spell it out h o n g.
Speaker 7: X i u q u a n.
Speaker 4: Hong ju Quan.
Speaker 3: It's it's insane.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, well check that out. This is really cool. Yeah,
I appreciate that. So heavenly king, Chinese revolutionary religious leader.
He was ordained. I guess he thought to be Okay, well,
he's actually crazy. In the visions, he saw himself as
the brother to Jesus Christ and that he would make
a confusion between Confucianism and Christianity. Interesting. So yeah, definitely
unfortunately a delusion. What's up, Alistair Gotta, I'm mute. By
the way, he's an iconic class too, which is interesting.
It says Alie star. Do you want to immute or not?
H what's up? Man? H got an? You bob you on?
Speaker 4: You?
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Huh?
Speaker 3: All right, Hey, you know I'm not here to debate.
Speaker 8: I just had a question. I'm, you know, an orthodox Christian.
I was I was running. I heard you talk about
the book.
Speaker 3: Christianese and the rise of the Papacy.
Speaker 1: M hm, so yeah, I was.
Speaker 3: I was thinking about getting.
Speaker 8: Getting at that whole series with the four from Saint
Vladimir's Are you like familiar with that?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I have three of them. I don't have all four.
Speaker 2: Okay, Yeah, I was just one of you know, that's
a good, good like starter for church history.
Speaker 3: It's part of my catechises.
Speaker 1: I read the Paradise and Utopia series.
Speaker 8: But Father John strickl I don't know if you're familiar with.
Speaker 3: That, I, you know, liked it.
Speaker 1: I have not read that, but I think that it
would be a really probably the best in terms of
church history from the orthodox perspective of that series. So yeah,
I definitely think it's really good. I haven't read them all,
but I've read most of the Papa Dooccas Myandorf one,
and then sections of the Andrew Louth one, so I
would recommend it. Adam, what's something man there? Adam eb
eb you know what I mean? Hello, Yes, sir.
Speaker 3: Was that Pastor Jay? That's crazy? Sorry, it just kind
of shut off.
Speaker 9: I'm in my car, so I'm not I don't have
too many.
Speaker 1: I have a few questions.
Speaker 9: But something you said earlier, something about Protestants having zoom sorryfication.
Speaker 1: Somebody called in and said that they Yeah, I was
just making a joke because somebody said they were invited
to a Protestant zoom prayer service, and we were just
kind of making a joke.
Speaker 9: That's crazy.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 9: I've seen videos of like people in VR chat having
like Bible study like with their like furry avatars and
everything was crazy.
Speaker 1: I mean I think it's you know, like.
Speaker 9: Like these videos have like seventeen views. It's crazy.
Speaker 1: I mean, Father Deacon has morning prayers on his channel.
So the idea itself isn't necessarily bad. But like if
you if you don't go church, go to church, and
you you know, are replacing you know, participating in the
sacraments with like furry VR church, then that's ridiculous.
Speaker 9: Yeah, all right, So I had two questions. One on
geopolitics if that's fine topics, sure, all right, I'm not
I don't pay too much attention.
Speaker 3: The whole Ukraine Russia thing.
Speaker 9: I've heard rumors and everything about the Ukraine Church being
not legitimate, and I've heard rumors.
Speaker 1: About that's correct Russian. Yeah, go watch my U my
interview with Father John Whiteford on it, and with my
interviews with Jim Das on it.
Speaker 9: All right, Yeah, it's but like what's the I guess
what's the take on the whole war in general?
Speaker 3: Like both My take is both sides are bad. I
just I just don't know enough about it.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, it's unfortunate. I don't know that anybody,
no Christian, has to have a you know, good guy,
bad guy necessarily approach to it. I do think that
if you read something like William F. William Ingdahl's book
Full Spectrum Dominance, you can see the Russian attitude and
why they were provoked for a long time by the West.
And you know, definitely NATO, definitely the CIA, the State Department.
They want to divide the church. They want to go
in and have a Bobo's, they want to have skittles.
So that's their motivation. So what does that tell you?
And tian z Heyed, what's up?
Speaker 3: Hey?
Speaker 1: Jay?
Speaker 6: Yes, sir, all right, so do you understand you abandon
a tradition that was here for sixteen centuries.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 3: The calendar and you use a papal calendar.
Speaker 1: So this guy again, so this is the guy who
like just came into the church and now you're uh
old calendar zella and just makes new profiles every time
I do an open stream, even though we've already had
this conversation, Matthew, what's up man?
Speaker 10: Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm trying to think how to ask. Well, uh,
I don't.
Speaker 10: It was like a week ago or something and you
said there's no new divine revelation after.
Speaker 3: The New Testament?
Speaker 1: Is that what you said, well, after the death of John. Yeah, okay.
Speaker 10: So, like I'm Orthodox, and I don't know the specific
prophecies of Saint Paysios, but like I've read them offhand,
and like they're about Turkey basically being re Christianized something
along those lines. So like, what is that considered, Like
is that new divine revelation or.
Speaker 1: Uh, well, what we mean by public divine revelation is
like anything that would be part of the Apostolic deposit, right,
Jude says in Jude three that's complete. So there is
no new Apostolic deposit, there's no new books of the Bible.
Even the councils like niceea, they're not new public divine revelations.
Their explications and statements as to what divine revelation teaches,
they're not divine revelations in terms of literally the same thing.
Speaker 10: Okay, And like I totally believe it because like I've
talked to people at monasteries who knew stuff about me
that I never told them.
Speaker 3: So, like I firmly believe in I don't. I don't
even know what you would call that, but I.
Speaker 2: Well, that's prepoinant, my spiritual father's plavoyant. That's not that's
not dogma, Like that's a different category. Like being able
to have virtues and insights and discernment and stuff like
that is not new revelation. Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, new revelation would be Jude three Jude verse three. Obviously,
that's what I mean. It's people are getting my nerves.
In the Chat, it says the faith was Once we're
all delivered, that means that it's complete. There doesn't need
to be like Joseph Smith or Mohammed new prophets to
give new divine revelations. You see. And by the way,
once once that's clear, that cuts out all the sects,
all the charismatics, Ellen White, seven Day, Avidis, Joseph Smith, Mohammed,
they're all done because they're all premised on the idea that,
oh I need new revelations to fix and complement the
previous revelation. Well, if there is no new revelation, then
that's all done. Like you're already canceled out from the outset.
So that's the main point of that argument. And by
the way, to the guy, I mean, does that guy
realize that ro Corp is old calendar. He's like accusing
me of abandoning the old calendar. Ro Corps is old calendar? Dude,
what are you talking about? This doesn't make any sense. So,
but no public divine revelation was complete with the death
of the apostles. There's no new prophets, no new It's
like you could say, well, but what about an elder
who's prophetic. Okay, no elder who has the gift of
clair buoyant is gonna say I've written a letter, I
have received divine revelation. Add this to the New Testament. Okay,
we're not Montanists. Montanism was already condemned a long time ago. Roma,
what's up man? Blank? Nobody you can call in or
you can uh huh.
Speaker 11: A big fan of the channel. My wife and I
were going to start our I this fall. I know
that's probably not good for you to hear, but I
had some questions.
Speaker 3: I was reading pastor returns.
Speaker 11: And I've listened to you speak a couple of times
about the universal and Ordinary magic Serrium and when the
Pope invokes it and in sickle world and stuff.
Speaker 3: So what is your view on when the pope and
how the Pope invokes.
Speaker 11: The Universal ordinary Magisterium? According to Pastor Attornis, it's.
Speaker 1: Not just Pastor Attornis. Pastor atturnist is just one or
two sections of Vatican one. And so I'm not trying
to be rude to you, but did you actually read
Vatican one or just the sections from Pastor Atturnis.
Speaker 11: So I read Vatican one, I would say six months ago,
and then I just recently reread just Pastor Returners, So
I have not read that the actual entire text of
Vatican one in probably six months.
Speaker 3: So you can if you want to give me a.
Speaker 1: Refresh, that's fine, And I'm not trying to that's fine,
and I'm not trying to trap you. It's just that
I don't even remember if what's on online in terms
of Vatican One, I don't even remember if it includes
the anathemas. It might not even have them on there.
I don't recall. Uh, But if you get the ten books.
Speaker 3: There, so there is an English there is an English website.
There is it. Sorry, Sorry to cut you off, J.
Speaker 11: There is an English website that does have the anathemas.
That's the one I read. I don't actually remember which
website it is, but I have read the anathemas before.
Speaker 1: Well, no, you can, okay, good. I just want to
make sure that we have all the same things in mind,
because I think at papal encyclicals dot net they have
pretty much everything except the anathemas. No, wait, maybe it is.
I think it does have the anathemas. So here is
one of the anathemas at least. But let's see so
that so this one does. So papalincyclicals dot Net has
the totality of it. And if you control f search ordinary,
I believe it comes up twice. So if you look
at Chapter three of Vatican One on Faith, it says
that wherefore, by divining Catholic faith, all those things are
to be believed which are containing the Word God in
scripture and tradition, which are proposed by the Church as
matters to be believed divinely revealed, whether by solemn judgment
that would be Extra Cathedral, or by the ordinary and
Universal Magisterium. Right, So there's one statement of it in
section three on faith. And to be clear, my understanding
of what Roman Caolics mean when they say universal ordinary
magisterium is anything that the Church has always believed at
all times and proposed for belief is part of the
universal ordinary magistrum. So something like I don't know the
inspiration of scriptures right, there might not be a dogmatic
statement on that until you could argue maybe Trent or
the Sollabus of Errors or Lamentabiley, but it wouldn't matter
because if say a thirteenth century pope mentioned the inspiration
of scriptures, you could argue that is part of the
ordinary universal magistrum, even if there's not a specific ex
cathedral magisterial statement on it. Does that make sense?
Speaker 11: Yeah, that makes sense, so more so or not more so.
But this is really was my question to you. I
was listening to your debate with Eric Yubara from a
couple of years ago, and specifically there's a specific part
where you mentioned a contradiction between uh wastate and Mortalitian animals.
I think is the one you bring up a lot correct,
and I my understanding of the way the pope invokes
the universal ordinary Magisterium is obviously he can speak from
the chair in terms of the extraordinary magisterium, but with
the universal and ordinary magisterium that applies when the pope
is reiterating and teaching that has.
Speaker 3: Been quote unquote you know, been known in every age.
Speaker 1: Yes, correct, and that's exactly what I was arguing. So
just I just want to say props to you for
correctly stating everything so far, because usually in a Romancolic
discussion by this time it's already way off, but you've
gotten everything correct.
Speaker 3: So yes, well, so Jay, I don't want to take
up too much.
Speaker 1: Time you want, is I always welcome the civil papists,
Please take all the time you want.
Speaker 11: So, I when I first started really getting serious about
my Christian faith, I was very interested in Orthodoxy. I
was messaging a I believe it was actually a I
was an Arabic speaking Orthodox church near me, and I
couldn't work up the courage to go to liturgy because
I was only like sixteen and I didn't know anyone there.
So then I started researching Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and probably
in the last year or so, I've come around to
Catholic positions on things, and I still really enjoy listening
to people like you, several other good Orthodox apologists or priests,
and I really, honestly, I think your conversation with ERICI Bara,
although it got tense at times, I really enjoyed it
and the other You've made me think about a lot
that I wanted you to ask.
Speaker 3: And then I wanted to ask you a question on
was epistemology.
Speaker 11: Because I know you talk a lot about how classical
foundationalism has holes, you know, that sort of Tomistic way
of looking at knowledge. So how does this work in
regards to how scripture confirms the authority of the Church,
because this is something that I've been thinking about from
a classical foundationalist perspective.
Speaker 1: Well, let me stop. Let me say, because I'm not
opposed to answering the epistemic question, but how do we
go from universal ordinary magisterium and mortality animals and now
where you want to go to this? I thought we
were going to talk about that.
Speaker 11: Oh yeah, oh sorry, I I mores just wanted your view.
I wanted to correctly understand the Orthodox view on what
on how you look at these contradictions, right, because a
lot of Roman Catholics will say, well that's not magisty
or will that's not infallible.
Speaker 1: Hold on, hold on, So let's I've got Mortalian Animos
pulled up, and he's that I'm going to quote section eight.
Thus be this being so, it is clear the Apostolic
See cannot in any terms take part of the assemblies
of non Catholics, nor is it in any way lawful
for Catholics to support the work for such enterprises. If
they do, they give countenance to a false Christianity alien
to the Church of Christ. And then he goes on
to say that it's basically a denial of the teaching
of the Holy Spirit, and then it's a surrendering of
the Gospel et cetera, et cetera, and Mortalian animos. So
in nineteen twenty eight, how could it be contrary to
the teaching of the Gospel? And I would argue that
it's pretty clear that from the beginning, let's say that
the church is historically Roman Catholic, Okay, from the time
of Peter all the way up to Mortalian Animos in
nineteen twenty eight, is it not the universal teaching of
the Roman See that you cannot participate in interfaith gatherings
much less with other religions.
Speaker 11: I would say from my reading of pretty much everything
that that.
Speaker 3: Would be my interpretation.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly, I agree, and that would fulfill what Vatican
one says on section three here on faith meeting the
universal ordinary judgment of the Church.
Speaker 11: Right again, I mean, I think you'd probably have to
be right on that one in regards to mortality and animals,
just because it is a teaching that has been reiterated.
I mean, you can find the teaching in our earliest
fathers on it, you know, both East and West. So yeah,
I'd have to agree with you on.
Speaker 1: That one, okay. And on top of that, before we
get to your epistemic question really really quick, I want
to make a point that do you not think that
the other point about the temporal supremacy, the Roman bishop
being necessary for salvation and a dictatas poppy and when
I'm signing to them and that no longer being held,
is that not a system level I just understand how
it's not these system level defeaters.
Speaker 11: So, and this is one of the things that I
kind of wanted to talk to someone like you because
you're very well read. You definitely have read these things
more than I have. I just recently read Unham Song them,
so I guess my view of it is is I
see the claimed contradictions, right, you know where the modern
Catholic Magisterium no longer promulgates things that seem to have
been declared as as unchangeable dogamas like if you.
Speaker 3: When I read Unham Song Them for.
Speaker 11: The first time, I was like, I was confused, because
this doesn't seem to be in line with the you know,
the view of the Magisterium in the modern day, especially in.
Speaker 1: My and yeah, so, but not just you realize that
as late as the Syllabus of Errors, the teaching of
when I'm sung them on the temporal supremacy of the
Roman bishop is held up. Have you have you read.
Speaker 3: I'm not in its entirety, I'll be honest.
Speaker 1: You should read that. It's not very long, and it's
not very very long, and and the sybs of Errors
is attached to Vatican one.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I was trying to remember. I think I've just
read like sections people have pasted. I don't think I've
actually ever gone on the document. But but no, Honestly,
my my position right now, as I said, my wife
and I.
Speaker 3: We haven't started our c A.
Speaker 11: I'm kind of doing my due diligence listening to people
like you and really going through the the proposed contradictions.
So when you say it's a system level defeat, level defeater,
I'll just I'll just grant that it might be because
I haven't looked into it enough, you know, because there's
all sorts of claims on these contradictions. People will say that, oh,
Vatican two is not really dogmatic, which I don't agree
with that whatsoever. Or people will say that we're Talian animals,
isn't dogmatic, or they'll say, you know, these contradictions, but.
Speaker 1: You understand that, but you understand hold on, hold on,
because even this whole discussion of as whether it's quote
dogmatic or not, is really ultimately a deflection because even
if it's not dogmatic, it's ordinary teaching. And Canon seven
fifty of your canon Law says that laity are bound
to accept the normative ordinary teaching even if it's fallible
with docility. That's Canon's seven.
Speaker 3: Fifty submission of yeah, submission of mind and will.
Speaker 1: So you have to accept the ordinary teaching even if
it's fallible with docility, which means that you don't get
to just say yeah, maybe the modern paper. Because I
tried this when I was a trat, I would say, yeah, okay,
maybe you know John Paul and Benedict and you know Francis.
Maybe they've rejected the teaching of the silvis of errors,
which is consistent with what was taught all the way
back to Uenum sanctum about the temporal supremacy. Maybe they
don't teach it anymore. But I don't believe I think
they're wrong. Well, I don't get the liberty of saying
publicly that they're wrong when Canon seven fifty says, even
if it's not dogmatic, I must submit to it with docility.
Speaker 11: Correct, You don't have the right to dissent from magisterium
in those matters.
Speaker 1: Well a minute. If you say I don't know, but
that's admitting that it's magisterial.
Speaker 11: Well no, When I I guess what I was getting at,
Jay sorted if.
Speaker 1: I'm not, But you just said, you just said you
don't get the descent from the magisterium in that matter.
That would mean that the syllabus of errors and when
I'm saying to them are magisterial.
Speaker 11: Uh, aren't they? I mean I don't know if that
would be disputed, but.
Speaker 1: You were saying that a minute ago. Many Catholics argue
that they're not magisterial and not binding and not authoritative.
Speaker 11: Yes, many Catholics do, so I guess, Jay, what I'm
getting at is, I don't know the I haven't looked
into all these sort of I guess responses to contra
fictions that you bring up.
Speaker 3: I've heard some of them, some of them.
Speaker 11: I'm convinced that some of them I think are more
convincing than others. I am more so, just wanted to
ask you this specific question about your view of the
universal Ordinary Magisterium to get a better grasp of when,
especially Orthodox people, especially in your sphere. You know, like
UBI has brought up some of this stuff from some videos.
Speaker 3: Those guys Mario and.
Speaker 11: Luigi have brought up some of that stuff, and I
think a lot of them take their cues on how
they view the papal magisterium from you.
Speaker 3: So I really just wanted to.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to clarify my understanding is I thought you agreed, right,
is that anytime anyone in the bishopric, in terms of
the bishops and a synod in the Romancllolic Church or
the Pope himself when they speak not directly in an
ex cathedral way, it can still be universal, ordinary magestarium
when it is the teaching of the church perennially.
Speaker 11: Yes, yes, okay, perfect that is That is the clarifying
question I wanted to ask.
Speaker 3: That makes it.
Speaker 11: Because I feel like a lot of a lot of
a lot of people on both sides want to say, well,
if it's not ex cathedra, it doesn't count.
Speaker 3: Well, especially does not count.
Speaker 1: That's why you're hammering that. That's hoos.
Speaker 3: One hundred percent.
Speaker 11: And I think you have a better grasp on what
is magisterial than most Catholics do one hundred and fifty percent.
Speaker 3: So I really appreciate you answering that question. Would you mind?
Can I ask the epistemic question?
Speaker 7: Yes?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 11: Uh So basically the question is, you know how against
Protestants in sort of anti Protestant polemics will bring up, oh,
how do you know you have the canon? And uh
there's a great channel called intellectual Catholicism that brings up
the Protestant cannon problem. And I I was looking at
kind of from my classical foundation as perspective and if
you have the cannon. Let's say the scriptures, and the
scriptures give explicit authority to the church. Body, you know,
we would agree on that as apostolic churches, that the
scriptures explicitly give authority to the Church.
Speaker 1: I don't hold on. I don't think that makes sense.
The scriptures are a product of the Church. They don't
give to the church authority. I don't know what that.
Speaker 3: Means one hundred one hundred percent.
Speaker 11: I more so am saying you can see this the
recognition of the Church's authority in the scriptures.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah, thank you.
Speaker 11: Uh so you see the recognition of the church authority
in the scriptures themselves. So both the actual authority of
both the Church and the scriptures is from God. The
reason why they have authority is because they're from God.
Speaker 1: Sure, so.
Speaker 3: In I guess what I was looking at is that
it almost seems like a sort.
Speaker 11: Of spiral like you talk about with your epistemology, where
that classical foundationism doesn't have a good answer, does can't
deal with right, because the churches confirm the scriptures, they
confirm the cannon of the scriptures, they confirm the inspiration
of the scriptures from God. And in turn, the scriptures
confirm the authority of the Church, and the church is
leading on by God. And I was thinking about that,
and I.
Speaker 1: Know there's a symbiotic kind of a recursive relationship between
these two.
Speaker 11: Yes, And it doesn't seem I is that a problem
for classical foundationalism, like the way I have it in
my head?
Speaker 9: Well?
Speaker 1: Yeah, So for example, if a Roman I'm in a
video many years ago where I was pointing out the
circularity of the papacy, where the papal position can say,
for example, well we know the papacy because can you
mute when it's really a loud about groundings. The papacy
is proven because Matthew sixteen is about the papacy. Well,
how do we know what the scriptures are? Well, the
pope determines the scriptures. That's in my argument that I
made in that video years ago. That's a circular self
referencing authority. But papism does not. Typically, I don't know
any papists that believe in epistemic hoolism and that are
not foundationalists. I mean, you have Attorney Patras, which affirms
Tomism as the official philosophy of the Romancllolic Church, which
is one percent foundationalist. So I don't under I've never
heard of a Roman Callaic who believes in some sort
of epistemic holism or recursive positions. Maybe there is one,
but for all the Papists that I know and have
heard of and have interacted with and debated and read,
they are foundationalists, and the papal position is essentially foundationalist.
And so there would not be any in my view,
sensible position in Roman Catholicism that is circular that isn't
a fallacy on their own epistemological grounds. So if the
papacy confirms the papacy through Matthew sixteen, which is about
the papacy, because the papacy chose what books go into
the Bible, and that's how we know the Bibles. For
the papacy, it's like the ultimate reference point in circular
position is the the papsy itself, and that doesn't make
sense in a system which rejects recursive argumentation or quote
circular argumentation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, one hundred percent, that was that was my view
of it as well. I don't I think.
Speaker 11: There is answers to it from like a tomistic or
a foundation less perspective, But well.
Speaker 1: What would be the answer that isn't what would be
the answer that isn't self referencing or denying self evidence.
Speaker 11: I would say with the papacy question you raised, I
would have to think more about that question. In particular,
with the cannon question. I think you can there's a
little bit, you know, I take more of a I guess,
I don't know if you'd call it an inductive or
a probabilistic perspective to the truth of the truth of
Christianity and more.
Speaker 3: Specifically the truth of Catholicism.
Speaker 11: So I take kind of an induct the route of Okay,
there's these there's these evidences, you know, which includes miracles
and includes historical evidences.
Speaker 3: It includes you know, all the classes.
Speaker 1: All of those bad I mean, all those bad arguments
that we've addressed a million times.
Speaker 11: Oh yeah, no, I'm not saying, don't get me wrong,
a lot of these things like I watched your video
on how miracles do not prove?
Speaker 1: Are you the guy that I was?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 3: No, sir, no, sir.
Speaker 11: This is my first college I tried to get in
on the very end of the one.
Speaker 3: I think it was yesterday and that's why.
Speaker 1: Well, look, I'm not trying to be rude on me
to cut you off, but I think you and Ice
conversation will go very long, and that's good. I welcome that,
but I am going to have to end it pretty
soon because my wife and I have already scheduled a
stream that we're about to do. So Roma, I want
you to call back in for sure next time you
have time, and we do these streams all the time.
I want to say thank you to Father Deacon and NS.
Go to his channel, go support his work by getting
access to his courses. And for those that are curious,
what I just referenced was Lee of the thirteenth in
cyclical about Thomas Aquinas and Tomism being the official philosophy
of the Roman Cally Church. It's called Attorney Patras by
Leo the thirteenth, Not to be confused with Pastor E.
Turnus about Vatican one. So that's a separate document. But
here is Lee of the thirteenths in cyclical saying that
Tomism is the official philosophy. I'm well aware that that
doesn't mean that you can't have within Catholicism different schools.
I know there's Scotis. I know that there's different I
know that. I'm just saying that, according to Leo, the
official quote philosophy is Tomism, and that to me would
be a pretty good indicator that for the most part,
ninety nine percent of the time, even with Scotism right,
Scotis is still like an evidentialist and still a classical
foundationalist in terms of how he would cash out his epistemology.
I'm aware that he existed before the time of what's
called quote foundationalism. That's a post contient, post Enlightenment receiving
up post Daycarte Enlightenment development in terms of epistemology. I'm
well aware of that. But we can still say that
the basic attitude that somebody like Aristotle has or somebody
like Aquinas has is a form of foundationalism. I don't
think that's very controversial. I mean, both of them believe
in the self evident axioms, et cetera. So that's usually
what I'm critiquing, and that doesn't mean that we disagree
with evidences. I got to read these super chats, and
I want to remind you guys too, to head on
over to the supporter of the show which is the
Great Chalk dot Com. Use the promo cod jyfo is
already got forty percent off all these great chalk products,
including the performance stack that has to do with working out.
This is not a p pee pill, Father Deacon, thank
you for joining us today.
Speaker 3: Hey, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: I got to head out to bless all of you guys.
Has risen and great great topics and great people coming
on today.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, yeah, we had. We had a lot of really
good chests today, no weirdos or crazy people, which is
a good one. Just like the other day, we had
a very civil Roman Catholic discussion day. Everybody they called
in was super cool, so that's always much more flexible
and acceptable when everybody's being cool. Jamie and I, however,
remember you used from a co jf is aread get
forty percent off of your great chalk products right there
at chalk dot com c hoq dot com. The link
is in the show description. You can also pre order
my book. You can also order my philosophy course, twelve
lectures on the totality of the history of Western philosophy,
packed into very concise two to three hour lectures for
each of those including Father Deaconductor Annis for a pistemology
and including Father Vladimir on aesthetics. You can get that
philosophy course. In the show description, hush Tone says, when
I was into psychedelics, I talked to entities. I was
perceiving that I was always perceiving. They told me that
I was super smart and I had secret knowledge exactly. Yeah,
they always want to puff you up. And he said,
I think these were deemons. I agree with you, hush
Tongue quantum yakub. Would C. S lewis concept of the
dow be a perennialist one? I don't actually know, really
good question. I'd have to read more on what C.
S Lewis thought about the dow. I'm not sure, but
I think everybody usually points to Christ the eternal Dow
to see, you know, the similarities from the Orthodox view
taint nothing. Ten dollars? Do you think Orientals are good
evidence against Catholicism since the arguments by both sides or
absent Vatican ones idea of Roman supremacy and infallibility. I
think it is an interesting point you can go to.
It's like a supporting argument. I don't think that it's
going to be very convincing the many Roman Catholics, though,
But I do think you're right. Tain't nothing that. Yeah,
ultimately that is a pretty good a dindum argument. Zellmoxists
three month member. What's up? He says, is it a
coincidence that this was the year of love and that
was Jay's resolute and then he gets on these big podcasts.
I don't think so this is the year of love. Hey,
maybe that did help with getting on the big podcasts.
I really struggled with my love on the whatever podcast.
I'll tell you that much. That was really hard talked
to smooth five dollars. I went to an Orthodox church
last month. I came home cleared out my house. But
my girlfriend, Oh, I came home to my house being
cleared out, and my girlfriend of five years left and
is already engaged. Well, I think you dodged a bullet.
Then if you had a woman leave you because you
went to Orthodox church, what it sounds like and she's
already with some other dude, I think that you dodged
a bullet. So thank God for that. Oh that's a
wild superjet. Let's talk God. We already did that. One
irrational became a member. What's up? Jem covered the debate.
I think he means the Ubie debate. We didn't actually
get to most of the stuff I wanted to talk
about today, which is okay, that's oftentimes what happens. I
actually wanted to talk about the Piers Morgan appearance, which
I haven't commented on on my channel yet. I wanted
to talk about the upcoming debate with Tim Gordon on
Tim Cast. I didn't get to that. If I got
enough energy, guys, I'll do a stream later tonight after
Jamie and I stream. We'll see if I have enough energy.
But I did. Also didn't get to getting deep into
the UBI debate. But it sounds like a lot of
people have already kind of discussed it and vert of
big toasts to talk about the Voice of Reason debate.
I meant to, but we didn't get to it today.
We'll try to get to it again. H Brosey become
a member four months. Please don't debate Voice of Reason.
I've asked for a year and he keeps ducking and
avoiding and ignoring. I don't think he wants to do it,
and we already know they're all gonna say, oh, the
guy who's too mean. I don't I have to do
with debate with the version with me? We mean Dan Town,
Will you have the debate with Als O'Connor. Still so
emailing back and forth with Peers's Piers Morgan's producer. They're
supposed to be a cosmic skeptic debate, right, cosmic skeptic
won't debate theism with me? The very thing he's known
for debating. He says he won't debate me on. Now,
I think that's pretty interesting. I mean, he doesn't have
to debate, but why would he not debate me on
the thing that he's known for debating and the thing
that many people associate me with debating theism. It's not
the only thing we debate, but it's one of the things.
And so the last message that I sent to Peers'
producer was is cosmic skeptic willing to debate any other
subjects relative to that? So I tried to word it
to see if he'll, you know, will make it work.
I've not yet heard back, but I definitely want to
do it. I want to do some kind of debate
with him on Piers Morgan. It'll get a lot of
views Luca, how would you respond to Roman Catholic that says,
I don't have to listen to the statements from twenty fifteen.
I think you're referring to the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishop's statement. I'm not sure what twenty fifteen statement is.
There another one I know, Reflections on Covenant and Mission
was from the two thousands. I mean, they can say
that they don't have to listen to it, but the
problem is that if the papacy says those types of things,
then it's still heretical, whether or not Francis put any
authority behind it. So they keep equivocating on and moving
the goalpost to say that, well, Francis didn't make it
binding or authoritative. Binding and authoritative has nothing to do
with whether the statement's heretical or not. And if Francis
teaches error or heresy or John Paul the Second, then
they have departed from Vatican One's promise of indefectibility and
of the Romans, he cannot teach error. Remember when Honoreus
is condemned, it's because he wrote one letter to another
bishop that's not binding, that wasn't execa deeder quote unquote.
It was just one letter to a bishop and that
was enough to get him condemned. So on their own standards,
it doesn't make sense. Oscar became a remember what's up dude.
Let's see last few super chests ever got Stampatron. No,
he got out of perennialism. He says, we got this
other guy. We got that one. Suki. Here's for the
foot farts. Thank you, Suki. We already read that. We
read that Stefan fifteen dollars, Jay, congrats on surpassing one
hundred k on X. You mentioned a friend of yours
that lived in Russia and came back to the US.
Could you say the reasons that he did it and
why it didn't work.
Speaker 12: I think that he's got several kids, he's got a brood,
and he felt like it was a challenge to kind
of try to live out in the countryside, and also
the issues with the war.
Speaker 1: I think, if I recall, the Russian government was asking,
you know, people who had come out there that they
might need to move back for a while or something
like that. But it's just a it's a big challenge.
I think franch one dollar guys. Remember we're about to
go live over here on Jamie's channel. It'll be a
few minutes from now, maybe four fifteen, and we're gonna
have a lot of fun talking about all this alien nonsense.
With alien eggs going around in the media, we've got
more media promotion of aliens in UFOs, which I think
is a sye up. So we're gonna be talking about
all that over on Jamie' channel here in a minute.
What about Reddit Orthodox ex Orthodox channel. I've never gone
to that. I don't know much about it, can't comment
on it. Tennis. Two dollars. Did you see Destiny review
of your debate?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: I didn't, but I heard that he said that epistemology
doesn't matter and is I he said, is a pistemology
even a thing? No, he said, is epistemic justification even
a thing? So what does that tell you about a
Destiny's level of theology, Steve, No, we already read that.
We read that. Let's see Charshie. Five dollars. Did you
read S. K. Bain's book nine to eleven as Ritual?
I have his book up on the shelf. I don't
think I've read all that one, but I did read.
I think William Ramsey had a book on that two
a long time ago. I read his I don't know
about all. I think it's a speculation. I don't mind
people speculating on it, but I try to stick to
like the more demonstrable facts about the Big nine event
that you can prove, like the Penac documents and that
kind of stuff. Jota one twenty dollars. It's weird to
see the rise of online people suddenly worshiping Tiny Mustache Man.
I think a lot of this is a sigh up.
If you read Surf and Rose, he says not to
buy into Tiny Mustache Man's neopaganism. They're LARPing as if
they are soldiers. Tiny Mustache Man needs to go away,
just like Big Z. Yeah, I think both positions are
a problem. Let's see cool Bear could a ten dollars
This Sunday, I'll be going to my third Eastern Orthodox liturgy.
Everybody at church said you were epic there. The priests
of the church looks like you. But he's older. Well,
I guess that's a good sign. So he's a hottie.
You get a hot priest. Making sure I didn't miss
any of the super chats going through here. Let's see
it's the last one. Andrew Dwyer, can you give a
shout out to doctor David Patrick Harry, Yeah, shout out
to Cotel. He got his PhD. He finished, so looking
forward to seeing him come back to streaming. I miss
Tristan stream too. Like Tristan doesn't streamed a long time.
And I know that Chase will probably have a hard
time hearing that due to their rivalry. But I enjoy
both of their inputs, even if they are retarded birds.
How many love points do you have for Cotel? Thirteen
tyler A twenty jay, thank you for guiding me into Orthodoxy.
I just got baptized in a Greek church. What about
the patriarch's liberal views? I would say, Yeah, I go
ahead and try to perhaps find a Serbian or royal
court church, probably ja tu one five dollars. My donation
was too controversial. Sometimes people send in yeah, super chests
that he can't really read, but yeah, saw them on
twenty dollars. Well you debate Voice of Reasoner Wes Huff. Okay,
so again we tried to get west Huff to come
on the timcast debate. We tried to get uh some
some other prost to do or forget his name, and
they were not interested. And so I asked ruse Line
when I was on his podcast if Wes Huff would
want to do some type of discussion, and that was
kind of perhaps open in the air as a potential thing.
So we'll see. I've asked Voice of Reason and he
never replies, which tells me he doesn't want to do it. Ay,
Abby's Songe fifty dollars, thank you for the stream. Well,
thank you, Abby, I like those fat fifty dollars. Super
chest Dmitri five dollars, will you ever do it? Literary
analysis of Dante's Divine Comedy? That's actually a good idea.
We've done a lot of literary streams. They don't get
any views because everybody's a bunch of dundums. It doesn't
read books. But Bob three dollars. I'm new to orthodoxy.
I'm Antiochi and the priest's wife gave a homily. Is
that normal? That is not normal? In fact, I would
say that's a big red flag, So maybe start looking elsewhere.
David Murdoch twenty dollars. If you present that an argument
in a short book, would you go with an Ristilian framework?
He says the topic is Luciferian elements of Mormonism. I
don't usually try to frame frame things in syllogisms. I
mean I did that in like the stuff on Malnew Debate.
I mean sometimes it's useful if somebody's being really persnickety
about it. But I probably wouldn't do that, especially not
in a writing format. I would just go with the
usual stuff that I do when I talk about Mormonism,
which is like, why did Jesus Smith write himself into
Genesis fifty? I mean that's like a obvious, you know,
con and sign there. Oscar became a member, and I
apologize to Ian Cross Lunch. Shout out to Ian. We
had a good conversation with him down in Miami. Not
trying to be rude to Ian and the other people
in line. I do have to go because we did
have a pre scheduled stream to do, but hop on
any time you guys want to next time. We do
these streams like every day almost so see you guys soon. Everybody.
Have a good night. Oh and by the way, for
those of you on YouTube, we'll be right over here
on Jamie's channel. You see Jamie put up these fifties
Mermaid Babes here to lure you all over to her
channel because we'll be doing the alien egg lamb stream.
This is gonna be a lot of fun because they
just insist on force feeding us alien bull crap no
matter how much people don't care. No one cares about
alien crap, they just keep pushing it.