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