Speaker 1: S S.
Speaker 2: S S.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah. There have there have, there have, there have Yeah.
Speaker 5: The career.
Speaker 2: Success success success success success success.
Speaker 6: Ssss success ss ss.
Speaker 7: S S S S S S S S S S
Speaker 7: S S S S.
Speaker 3: S s s s S s s S.
Speaker 7: Second second.
Speaker 8: Second second, second second.
Speaker 9: We've learned so much.
Speaker 10: If you've been on the Jaysonnalysis, right, A lot of
Speaker 10: you guys are new, I understand, that's cool. Glad to
Speaker 10: have you here, but some of you have been with
Speaker 10: me for the long haul. In fact, there are some
Speaker 10: who've been with Jays Analysis for ten years, reading it
Speaker 10: back in the day, and we've come a long way,
Speaker 10: come a long way. All right, Welcome, thank you, glad
Speaker 10: to see you all here. I got a room of
Speaker 10: almost two hundred nerds. I'm sure the nerds will file
Speaker 10: in then we can get up to about three hundred.
Speaker 1: Den I will see.
Speaker 9: You, boy, Jay in the house. You boy can't see me.
Speaker 11: Thanks.
Speaker 8: Boots shoot Shots, boots, Shop boots, shoots and Storm boots, boots,
Speaker 8: Stop boots, Stier sun was s.
Speaker 9: All right, welcome and if you can try to avoid
Speaker 9: those clicking in the background, David, Yeah, all right, welcome
Speaker 9: you are here in another episode of Jay's analysis. Today
Speaker 9: we have our good friend, our brother David the real
Speaker 9: medwife back. David has delved deeply into the Chalcedonian issue,
Speaker 9: the issues of Pope Saint Leo and the so called
Speaker 9: Oriental Orthodox. We're going to look at that today. We're
Speaker 9: going to get into the topic of how the notion
Speaker 9: of hypostasis in nature is part of the confusion. How
Speaker 9: there's a development, you could say, in the understanding of
Speaker 9: those terms. We're not saying there's a development in doctrine,
Speaker 9: but there is a development in which terms will become
Speaker 9: precise in our theology over time. And David has done
Speaker 9: a lot of research into the actual writings of those
Speaker 9: in the opposing camps. And now this is relevant because
Speaker 9: there's a lot of a false acumenism in our day
Speaker 9: which assumes that, oh, well, all these positions are actually
Speaker 9: just the same. We're also in the same stuff, so
Speaker 9: there's no reason to fight anymore. And anybody who debates
Speaker 9: or fights over these issues is unloving and mean and
Speaker 9: has spiritual problems, which would mean that everybody at Chalcedon
Speaker 9: was unloving and mean and had spiritual problems, because of
Speaker 9: course they were debating these issues, and then for the
Speaker 9: next two hundred years, in the next two councils, it's
Speaker 9: actually the issues of Christology that get hashed out and debated,
Speaker 9: particularly the topics will be discussing today. We're going to
Speaker 9: cover a lot of those formative central texts and David
Speaker 9: has done what three part series. I think I made
Speaker 9: it through at least half or.
Speaker 1: I'm doing great jay this this stream. Some people might
Speaker 1: remember that we did the stream on Orientals as well,
Speaker 1: it was Florence as well. But what's different, what's going
Speaker 1: to be different about this stream is we're going to
Speaker 1: be diving more in dept. That stream was kind of
Speaker 1: dealing with the common misconceptions. This stream is going to
Speaker 1: be explaining pretty much the in depth Christology of Severus
Speaker 1: of Antioch, Philuxinus of Madbug, and other Oriental characters. And again,
Speaker 1: the reason why I even started doing this is it
Speaker 1: didn't sit right with me when I heard so many
Speaker 1: people say, oh, you know, for for sixteenth centuries, for
Speaker 1: like all this time we were actually believing in the
Speaker 1: believing in the same exact belief, but we just had
Speaker 1: terminological problems. And I saw a lot of different argumentations
Speaker 1: from copts, which made me say, Okay, I'm going to
Speaker 1: look into this. I'm going to research and see what
Speaker 1: both sides say, and the theology is really not the same.
Speaker 1: And when I made the video series, which by the way,
Speaker 1: if you want to watch like you can watch in
Speaker 1: any order, like if you want to start with part three,
Speaker 1: if you want to start with geophysicism in the photos,
Speaker 1: that's fine. You don't have to like watch it chronologically.
Speaker 1: When I started to upload the videos, one interesting thing
Speaker 1: that happened is that various different coptic priests have said
Speaker 1: that I don't really understand these issues. They said this
Speaker 1: on face, I don't really understand these issues, but none
Speaker 1: of them really explained how I don't understand these issues.
Speaker 1: And one of them, at least when they were pressed,
Speaker 1: they start to explain a little bit, but they showed
Speaker 1: that they didn't. They had no idea what they were
Speaker 1: talking about. So it really just seemed like, oh, he
Speaker 1: doesn't has no idea. He thinks we're different, but we're not.
Speaker 1: And just and this was back then, I only uploaded
Speaker 1: like the introductory parts. So we're going to be talking about.
Speaker 9: Why are they always arguing? Why are they always arguing
Speaker 9: against us, by the way, if what we say is
Speaker 9: not different.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. A lot of them like the way they act.
Speaker 1: A lot of them act like we had many people
Speaker 1: that were part the Oriental Communion and we asked them
Speaker 1: who they bishop were in the discord server and none
Speaker 1: of them really they didn't really want to say it.
Speaker 1: So there's a there's a sentiment, especially between a laity
Speaker 1: that like, oh, you know, we really are the same,
Speaker 1: and the clergy are to they don't care enough to
Speaker 1: actually talk about this. Farrington Peter Finks and he says
Speaker 1: that he studied this for thirty years, and he says
Speaker 1: that we're not different, but we don't accept Alkadon because
Speaker 1: they don't say the magic words exactly. So the stuff
Speaker 1: that we're going to be talking about is going to
Speaker 1: be dealing with the history. We're going to be going
Speaker 1: back to even fourteeny eight. I'm planning on giving like
Speaker 1: a short summary of what happened, because this is all
Speaker 1: going to be very relevant for people to understand what's
Speaker 1: going on. As we probably all know, they have a
Speaker 1: character calledness Stories In four twenty eight it becomes Patriarch
Speaker 1: of Constantinople. He says, stupid stuff like Mary is not
Speaker 1: the Mother of God and all that stuff. Saint Curle
Speaker 1: starts reading The Fathers, and one interesting thing to note
Speaker 1: while he's reading the Fathers is that he comes across
Speaker 1: and this is important to note because this explains why
Speaker 1: the term mea physics even came into play. Now, of course,
Speaker 1: if you watch the first part, we say that we
Speaker 1: don't do the word concept fallacy. The concept behind those
Speaker 1: words is what matters. So Saint Curle reads certain atonation
Speaker 1: letters when in reality they were written by a pollinarius.
Speaker 1: And there are various different people that make note of this.
Speaker 1: Timothy in his Ecclesiastical History, who's an Apollinarian disciple, says
Speaker 1: that the term mea physicis was made by a pollinarius
Speaker 1: in order to combat the innovation and heresies of the
Speaker 1: Cappadocian fathers and of Saint Antonatius and all these different
Speaker 1: people who in their eyes are preaching two natures. So
Speaker 1: I think this is kind of important to note. But
Speaker 1: he came across this term when he was researching about
Speaker 1: the Fathers, and he thought it was generally from Saint Antinasius.
Speaker 1: Now today we know that it's not from Saint Antonatius.
Speaker 1: It's a pollinarian forgeries, but it's important to note because
Speaker 1: this is really how the term comes to play. Then
Speaker 1: first council of emphasis happens. There's an historic council that's
Speaker 1: a split between Antwerk and Alexandri. This is very important
Speaker 1: because two years later, in four twenty three, there's a
Speaker 1: formula of reunion. There's a there's a reunion between Alexander
Speaker 1: and Antioch, two patriarchates that have different christologies. And one
Speaker 1: interesting thing and this is in letter turned nine and
Speaker 1: Saint Carrol that's going to be very relevant when we're
Speaker 1: talking about Pope Saint Leo is that he says that
Speaker 1: we know the theologians make some things of the evangelical
Speaker 1: and epostolic teaching about the Lord commonists pertaining to the
Speaker 1: one person and other things they divide as the two
Speaker 1: natures and attribute the word he wants to God on
Speaker 1: account of the divinity of Christ and the lovely ones
Speaker 1: on account of his humanity. So this is very relevant
Speaker 1: because Pope Saint Louis is the exact same thing in
Speaker 1: his tomb, but this is not acceptable for him, and
Speaker 1: we're going to get into how they defend this from
Speaker 1: Saint Carol, and then Saint Kurle argues against After the reunion,
Speaker 1: he argues against Theodore of Mopsuestia and the fifth secure
Speaker 1: Medical Council, will we condemn him as a heretic and
Speaker 1: he writes on the unity of Christ. He reposes, and
Speaker 1: then other stuff happens, so that there's a council in
Speaker 1: four forty eight under the presidency of Saint Flavian, he
Speaker 1: deposed Utichius, and then a year later Dioscurus says, oh, no,
Speaker 1: I have to save him because he doesn't teach. Oh
Speaker 1: he was rejected out of a because of Astorianizing patriarchs Ephesis.
Speaker 1: The second council happens. Saint Flavian, EBAs Theodore Dominus two
Speaker 1: of Antioch are all deposed. A year lady Saint louis excommunicated,
Speaker 1: so Dioscurus in one fell swoop just this excommunicating gets
Speaker 1: rid of three major patriarchs and other patriarchs as well.
Speaker 1: And so this is a big deal, right, This is
Speaker 1: a huge issue that's going on, and this context is
Speaker 1: important when we're talking about the Council of Kalkadon. And
Speaker 1: in four fifty one, the Council of Kalkadon happens and begins.
Speaker 1: And on the topic, by the way, j on the
Speaker 1: topic of all we believe in the same thing. If
Speaker 1: you look at the Troparia, if you look at the
Speaker 1: Tropario of Severus from the Coptic liturgy. What's really funny
Speaker 1: is that they refer to us as heretics. They refer
Speaker 1: to Calkeedonias as heretics. But now today, sixteenth centuries later,
Speaker 1: suddenly we believe the same thing, even though in their
Speaker 1: liturgy they refer to Calcadonius as heretics. As you think,
Speaker 1: this is like absolutely silly. We believe in the same thing,
Speaker 1: but apparently we are heretics. How how exactly? But so
Speaker 1: what are the oriental problem in the Council of Caltada.
Speaker 1: And if you watch the part two of my video
Speaker 1: series you will I deal with that with I deal
Speaker 1: with that argument extensively. So on one problem they have
Speaker 1: is that all you you first said that Christ is
Speaker 1: out of two natures, and then you insert into nature's right.
Speaker 1: And that's one of the arguments they use to say
Speaker 1: that there's a direction going to the way of news
Speaker 1: stories because he said the same thing. So this is
Speaker 1: an example of word concept fallacy. In here Nestorius used
Speaker 1: into natures. Therefore we cannot say into natures. And as
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, Severus I believe Saint Justinian uh
Speaker 1: cited Severus in saying this. Saint Justinian says that he
Speaker 1: makes he makes a point that Severus argues that all
Speaker 1: you know, when when the Father spoke of two natures,
Speaker 1: that was fine, but then came Nestorius, and now it's
Speaker 1: not fine. So Necessarius kind of poisoned the term in
Speaker 1: there eyes. And this is a great example of just
Speaker 1: the word consp fallacy, genetic fallacy. But the main problem
Speaker 1: with the tom of Leo, there's two problems. The one
Speaker 1: problem is that Pope Saint Leo talks about forms operating
Speaker 1: and seemingly independently in their eyes right, so he speaks
Speaker 1: of two forms of Christ, and they think that those
Speaker 1: two forms of Christ means two persons. The problem with
Speaker 1: that is because Pope Saint Leo has a vested understanding
Speaker 1: of christology. Forms mean essence, it doesn't mean hypostasis, it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean.
Speaker 9: Any And listen, you see this in Augustine. Augustine does
Speaker 9: the same thing in his sections in the City of God,
Speaker 9: where he cites the Platonists, he cites God as the
Speaker 9: first form, which actually is a mistake in Orthodox theology
Speaker 9: of Augustine theology is actually incorrect here, but it shows
Speaker 9: it backs up what you're saying, because Augustine is using
Speaker 9: form in the sense of essence or nature. And there's
Speaker 9: a whole chapter in Brad shows the book on that exactly.
Speaker 1: And and if you want to add, I use this
Speaker 1: quote in Michalkadan video Saint Gregor of Nissa. He says,
Speaker 1: the human nature does not give new life to Laster,
Speaker 1: so that itself. If Saint Leo said this, this will
Speaker 1: be deemed as heretical. But this is Saint Gregrif Nissa
Speaker 1: against Eunomius that says this. And then there's another quote
Speaker 1: from Pope Saint Leu in his tone where they argue, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, he asks which nature was on the cross? Well, actually,
Speaker 1: Saint Gregri Nissa again and against Eunomius says asks which
Speaker 1: form is beaten in the passion and which is glorified
Speaker 1: from eternity. So he's talking about the human form, meaning
Speaker 1: the human essence was beaten in the passion, which is
Speaker 1: exactly the same thing that Pope, Saint Leo says, So
Speaker 1: again these are arguments that Orientals use, but the responses
Speaker 1: are fairly simple. So again I'm keeping it simple. If
Speaker 1: you want the full explanation, you can look at part
Speaker 1: two again. So about about letter thirty nine of Saint
Speaker 1: Crole Severus and Phililitis. This is text four phil Alitis.
Speaker 1: So if you have this is from the Pauline Allen
Speaker 1: book on Severus of Antioch. Texts four Severus essentially says,
Speaker 1: in his defense of Saint Curle talking about dividing quote
Speaker 1: unquote divide in Christ's actions and attributing the divine wants
Speaker 1: the divinity, he says that he actually didn't mean it.
Speaker 1: I'm not kidding. He says, oh, he didn't mean it.
Speaker 1: He just made them anathematized their positions, and then he said, oh,
Speaker 1: he just let them praddle on like stupid kids. And
Speaker 1: he didn't actually mean it when he said that, which
Speaker 1: is again an example of rationalization in our view, and
Speaker 1: it has really bad implications on Saint Krole's view. I mean,
Speaker 1: if Saint kil didn't really mean what he said, doesn't
Speaker 1: that mean that he's fine with nestorianizing ideas. Will't that
Speaker 1: imply that he will be fine in Kalkadon because he
Speaker 1: didn't mean what he said. Again, this has bad implications
Speaker 1: for him. Another big issue they have is that kal
Speaker 1: Kadon accepted EBAs and Theodorit, which are two historian sympathizers. Now,
Speaker 1: in terms of theodor It, if you actually read his
Speaker 1: book Eeronistas, which was composed in four forty seven, there
Speaker 1: are numerous things that he says in Aeronistas, which is
Speaker 1: actually the things that Saint kill says. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to go over them, but you could. But again, I'll
Speaker 1: deal with those things and with Ibas. He has a
Speaker 1: bad letter about how he doesn't like Saint Kyle, but
Speaker 1: he doesn't really speak of theology. Not to mention, his
Speaker 1: acceptance was based on a reversal of the Council of
Speaker 1: Ephesus too, so it was based on reversing the effects
Speaker 1: of the Second Ficiene Council, which kal Kadan was based on.
Speaker 1: And not to mention again, his letter where he was
Speaker 1: condemning Saint Kilt was written for thirty three, back when
Speaker 1: he was a priest, not when he was a bishop,
Speaker 1: back when Saint Kyle himself was alive and there's another
Speaker 1: example of word concept faucy Jay. They will say a
Speaker 1: Hisstorius accepted the Kalakdonian Council. He said, oh, I believe
Speaker 1: in the same thing, which is funny. I mentioned this
Speaker 1: in the video. Arius does the same thing. It's the
Speaker 1: Council of Nicea. Ten years later, yes, he says, I
Speaker 1: accept the Council of Nicea.
Speaker 9: So yeah, that was a great point that you made.
Speaker 9: I mean, just because someone claims to accept something, that
Speaker 9: doesn't mean that the council is therefore erroneous. I mean,
Speaker 9: that's a ridiculous argument. And by the way, Basil in
Speaker 9: his writings is constantly having to deal with the word
Speaker 9: concept fallacy. We deal with it constantly as well, with
Speaker 9: idiots like Jonathan Hill, who will say that because the
Speaker 9: term natural theology is used in Saint Maximus, therefore he
Speaker 9: means natural theology in the tonistic sense, which is ridiculous.
Speaker 9: And Bradshaw has entire sections refuting that notion. Again, Father
Speaker 9: Stanieloy has entire sections refuting the notion that we believe
Speaker 9: in in the tonistic version of natural theology. So again,
Speaker 9: word concept fallas he is at the root. It's a
Speaker 9: central problem here in this debate with the Nonchalcedonians because
Speaker 9: they're married, on the one hand to the phraseology of
Speaker 9: Saint Cyril, when Saint Cyril was himself not married to
Speaker 9: one definitional sense of this terminology. This is the problem
Speaker 9: with all of these heretics and all these people who
Speaker 9: don't have any ability to understand nuance is that they
Speaker 9: try to squish everything into a one dimensional notion. And
Speaker 9: once they do that, in their minds, they think they've
Speaker 9: got some kind of key to refuting everyone else, but
Speaker 9: it just actually makes them look ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Not to mention, it's the same Jonathan Hill that sided
Speaker 1: it to coptics.
Speaker 9: Right, Yeah, he'll sign with coptics. He'll find anybody who's
Speaker 9: in a disagreement with us to try to find common cause,
Speaker 9: because he's psychotic by the way, he's bipolar and he's
Speaker 9: on meds.
Speaker 1: And not to mention, to prove that Sanco wasn't married
Speaker 1: to one phraseology, there's letter fifty three. There's his statement
Speaker 1: on Gleffire on the Pentitiic. But letter fifty three is
Speaker 1: very insightful because he says Christ is in and out
Speaker 1: of two natures. So he says exactly what Pope Saint
Speaker 1: Agatos says two centuries later, who also says that Christ
Speaker 1: is in and out of two natures, which is affirming
Speaker 1: the both formulas. Right, both formulas at Saint curl Usus.
Speaker 1: So we're actually not the devices, we're actually accepting the
Speaker 1: correct interpretation of both formulas. Really, the main debate is
Speaker 1: rejection of the Diophysite formula, which is by the way, patristic.
Speaker 1: And this is again as I proved Timothy the student
Speaker 1: of Apollinarias himself amidst this and another objection I've seen,
Speaker 1: and this is this is a silly objection. The word
Speaker 1: hypostatic union was not used in the Council of calcadan
Speaker 1: Therefore Calcadonis don't believe in hypostatic union. I mean, can
Speaker 1: you really believe this?
Speaker 9: Yeah, this is so many stupid arguments. I mean, it's
Speaker 9: like you had some really good comebacks on this point
Speaker 9: in your videos. By the way, I think that was
Speaker 9: solid argumentation. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it also shows right like the way people
Speaker 1: defending Kalkadon, it's not like they didn't appeal to a
Speaker 1: certain patriarch. They defended it's on the grounds of its theology,
Speaker 1: which is very important now I want to talk about.
Speaker 1: This is kind of like the basic issues in the
Speaker 1: Coptic Church. I've gone when I'm talking about the responses.
Speaker 1: I didn't make up these responses, like I heard these
Speaker 1: responses from other Coptic and Oriental Christians. So one response
Speaker 1: I've heard is about unleavened bread, and I think you
Speaker 1: can explain this as well. So the Armenian Church uses
Speaker 1: unleavened bread. The response I got, Jay is that, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's merely a jurisdictional preference. It's not that big of
Speaker 1: a deal. Can you explain to me, Jay, why that's
Speaker 1: why it's not merely a jurisdictional preference, Why it's such
Speaker 1: a big deal.
Speaker 9: Well, the ancient Canon's actually forbid doing that, and it
Speaker 9: would be a movement back to judaizing. It would be
Speaker 9: a movement back to the Old Testament conceptions. That's the
Speaker 9: reasoning why in the early Canons it's not that practice
Speaker 9: is forbidden. So, and this is exactly why Armenians would
Speaker 9: do things like sacrifice the chicken at the door of
Speaker 9: the the church on whatever ceremony, because this is a
Speaker 9: They're they're tempted with judaizing it. That's why.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's another objection I heard the cousin marriages and
Speaker 1: the Egyptian Church. The argument I heard was it's merely cultural,
Speaker 1: so it's okay. But I heard a good response from
Speaker 1: my friend Nick who said marriage is theological right. You
Speaker 1: can't separate marriage and just make cultural marriage and theology like,
Speaker 1: you can't separate these two. These are two intertwined things.
Speaker 1: So it wasn't really enough. But by the way, for
Speaker 1: the audience, I mean, these aren't arguments that are like,
Speaker 1: they won't really one hundred percent direly prough all this
Speaker 1: church is wrong. It just showcases certain problems. We'll get
Speaker 1: to the real issues really soon. And it is the
Speaker 1: circumcision in the Coptic Church. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: if you look at Florence Bull of the Union with
Speaker 1: the Cops, this is their motivation for seeing that those
Speaker 1: that are circumcised are damned because people in the Coptic
Speaker 1: Church this circumcision. And as a response, the Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: Church said, oh, you know, if you do a circumcision,
Speaker 1: you're damned. Bull of the Union with Cops, No.
Speaker 9: I mean this was already condemned, and things like Trollo
Speaker 9: and the Canons of Trollo. I mean this is already
Speaker 9: was already condemned by us as well, exactly. I mean,
Speaker 9: it's just ridiculous. How are you gonna go back to
Speaker 9: these practices which the New Testament obviously forbids, the Ancient
Speaker 9: Church forbids I mean obviously. And by the way, they
Speaker 9: are a Chumenists. This is another point that is often
Speaker 9: forgotten is that they will team up with Roman Catholics
Speaker 9: against Orthodox. They will team up they all the time. Yeah,
Speaker 9: so there, and they don't actually agree amongst themselves, these
Speaker 9: oriental communions, but they'll team up against Us with people
Speaker 9: who are far worse, like Roman Catholics.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I see this generally. I've seen multiple apologists just refusing. Now,
Speaker 1: to their credit, I've seen certain people, one of them
Speaker 1: who I'm debating with, he actually does represent the position
Speaker 1: faithfully and he does attack like Roman Catholics as well
Speaker 1: Protestants too. But most of the people that I talked to,
Speaker 1: they only focus on Orthodox. They don't even talk about
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics. They only focus on Orthodox. And this has
Speaker 1: to be noted. There's like, really online, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of Oriental groups and most of these are like Western converts,
Speaker 1: they're most of them are caatic humans. And all they
Speaker 1: do is they're just trying to find like inquiries. The
Speaker 1: Orthodox Church get them and just bombard them with all
Speaker 1: you know, Kalkadon, this is a historian. Here's like, here's this,
Speaker 1: this and this. Like you guys are an historian. You
Speaker 1: should come to the true Church. And they do this
Speaker 1: a lot. But that has to be noted to get
Speaker 1: onto the real stuff. This is the this is the
Speaker 1: beautiful stuff theology. First, I would like to talk about terminology.
Speaker 1: I'm going to dive much deeper into terminology in part one.
Speaker 1: I kind of events like very basic. So one thing
Speaker 1: we have to make sure, and I will avoid seeing
Speaker 1: the word nature as much as I can unless I'm
Speaker 1: quoting someone, because for us, nature obviously means essence, right,
Speaker 1: it means essence. For them it means hypostasis, and in
Speaker 1: some cases it means essence as well, but only in
Speaker 1: terms of Trinitarian theology. So in Severus's Letters sixty five,
Speaker 1: he says that we use the name nature sometimes generally
Speaker 1: of essence and sometimes specifically signifying the hypostasis of a man.
Speaker 1: And he goes on so generally speaking, he uses nature
Speaker 1: to mean essence in tridology, because the Cappadocians did this,
Speaker 1: but in Christology he use a different scheme, he used
Speaker 1: a different terminology, so we will be talking about that now.
Speaker 1: Of course, hypostasis for them doesn't mean person necessarily, because
Speaker 1: there are two types of hypostasis. Itself means a conchritization
Speaker 1: of essence, and that's like the antique like Nicee language
Speaker 1: that they inherit. There's two types of hypostasis. There's non
Speaker 1: self subsistent hypostasis, which is something that a hyperstat that
Speaker 1: doesn't exist on its own. So the example of this
Speaker 1: will be the body. The body without the soul doesn't exist, right,
Speaker 1: so it needs to be in the union with the
Speaker 1: soul in order to exist. And the soul in this
Speaker 1: example is self subsistent. It exists on its own, so
Speaker 1: when it's separated from the body, the soul still exists, right,
Speaker 1: so it's self subsistence. So these things are very important
Speaker 1: to note, and the body's soul analogy is very important
Speaker 1: in dealing with christologies. It's key to this, and there's
Speaker 1: a structural similarity for example, and the historians will essentially
Speaker 1: say that all hypostasis are self subsistent. So that's why,
Speaker 1: like when they're speaking of two natures and two hyper
Speaker 1: states and they're trying to make a union out of
Speaker 1: two hypostasis, because they are self subsistent, it still leads
Speaker 1: to two persons theology. Right, So this is like the
Speaker 1: basis of Saint CEUs argumentation is that you can't really
Speaker 1: have a single personhood in a union of persons in
Speaker 1: a prosopic union. For severs prosopone person will mean self
Speaker 1: subsistent hypostasis because it exists on its own, and there's
Speaker 1: a very common like so in their critological scheme, Christ
Speaker 1: is out of two hypostasis. There's a divine hypostasis, right,
Speaker 1: that's self subsistent, and there's a non self substance in
Speaker 1: human hypostasis, even though normally a composite human hypostasis is
Speaker 1: self subsistent. Because the human humanity of Christ doesn't exist
Speaker 1: outside of the union, it's non self subsistent. So it
Speaker 1: might this might raise a common question, a very simple question.
Speaker 1: So Christ is out of two hypostasis and he's one hypostasis,
Speaker 1: and it's doesn't that mean that he changed or doesn't
Speaker 1: that mean that there's a fourth person in the trinity.
Speaker 1: Actually no, it doesn't lead to.
Speaker 9: Yeah, only if you mistake the notion of what nature
Speaker 9: and hypostasis is. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the way they will defend it they will say, well,
Speaker 1: self subsistence is personhood, right, and so the humanity is
Speaker 1: now self subsistent. There's no personhood in his humanity, but
Speaker 1: his divinity is where his personhood is because that's self subsistent.
Speaker 1: And so that's how they can still defend that Christ
Speaker 1: is still a divine person. But there is indeed a
Speaker 1: problem with that. And there's two problems. Actually. Number one
Speaker 1: is that this kind of subverts triological language. So from
Speaker 1: one nature three hypostasis, it becomes one ussi and three
Speaker 1: prosopa in order to defend like the divine personhoods in
Speaker 1: the trinity. But also remember the soul is self subsistence.
Speaker 1: So this is this is something that Josephair talks about
Speaker 1: a lot in his book Got issued Out. He asked
Speaker 1: this question like three four times in his book, and
Speaker 1: he asks, what is you know is soul and hype?
Speaker 1: Are they synonymous or are they distinct? The reason why
Speaker 1: he's asking against the soul is self subsistent and it's
Speaker 1: union with the union with the body, and the soul
Speaker 1: will presuppose will mean that the soul will mean the personhood.
Speaker 1: So will this lead to a direction of pollinarianism is
Speaker 1: an argument that Joseph fairly is and I think if
Speaker 1: you are to defend Christ's personhood, Christ's divine personhood, then
Speaker 1: necessarily in that same system, it will also lead that
Speaker 1: that personhood is a faculty of the soul as well
Speaker 1: in that system, and that will lead to some sort
Speaker 1: of pollinarianism, not exactly, but but the same mistakes that
Speaker 1: pollinarius makes. So this will be like the basic problems
Speaker 1: that Sever's faces in Christoche. Do you have anything to add?
Speaker 1: Or should I move on?
Speaker 9: Now? You can go ahead, okay.
Speaker 1: So there are also other arguments, some of these I
Speaker 1: already used. This one is from the aunties of Jerusalem.
Speaker 1: So or the distinct formulas that we have is that
Speaker 1: we say the crisis into natures and out of two natures,
Speaker 1: out of two natures signifying the singleness of his personhood,
Speaker 1: into natures signifying the duality of his essence, duality of
Speaker 1: his essence's, duality of his energies, right, duality of his wills.
Speaker 1: So these are the two formulas that we use that
Speaker 1: are in perfect conjunction with other one another. Now the
Speaker 1: Orientals they reject it into Nature's formula. For them, it
Speaker 1: is an historian formula because to say into natures, for them,
Speaker 1: nature means hypostasis. So that means, oh, you mean into hypostasis.
Speaker 1: Someone might ask, well, what if they said nature meant essence.
Speaker 1: We will get to that because that actually happens and
Speaker 1: we will see how servers responds to that. But there's
Speaker 1: a common argument here is if Christ is out of
Speaker 1: out of two natures, out of the hypostasis, but he's
Speaker 1: not into natures. But at the same time, the natures
Speaker 1: are not mixed, and they're not confused, and they're distinct. Right,
Speaker 1: So after the Union service will speak of them being
Speaker 1: we'll speak a lot prieties. So what propriety is. It's
Speaker 1: kind of distinct from property. It's the color of prices,
Speaker 1: like eye color is a propriety of the human hypostasis.
Speaker 1: Heights eith right, these are like natural qualities.
Speaker 9: Yeah, what what you see here is also similar. I
Speaker 9: want to stress too to the tendency of a pollinarianism,
Speaker 9: which what a pollinarism and a pollinarianism did was to
Speaker 9: mistake characteristics of what are proper to human nature, different
Speaker 9: features and faculties or properties of human nature, to mistake
Speaker 9: that for what hypostasis is. Hypostasis is also not just
Speaker 9: the combination of all of the characteristics of human nature.
Speaker 9: So the nature person distinction is crucial here. As Saint
Speaker 9: John Damascus says, all heretics result from a failure to
Speaker 9: distinguish between nature and person. All of the heresies, all
Speaker 9: the trinitarian all the Christological heresies are based on this,
Speaker 9: which is based on dialectics. And we're going to see
Speaker 9: that dialectical tension in most of these guys that we
Speaker 9: talk about, especially Severus with his dialectical usage of Aristotle.
Speaker 9: But what I wanted to distress is just that there's
Speaker 9: an important distinction between the characteristic properties of a nature
Speaker 9: and what a hypostasis is. And this is this mistake
Speaker 9: that many many people make, including people in Orthodox circles
Speaker 9: as well, who just simply aren't studied on this or
Speaker 9: don't know the nuances of this topic. And it's very nuanced.
Speaker 1: So the main argument here from Leontius, I'll cut it short,
Speaker 1: is so you say Cristi is out of two natures.
Speaker 1: That's fine, that's good. But you say that his natures
Speaker 1: are also distinct even after the union, and Severance will say, yes,
Speaker 1: of course they're different, right, they're different. Right, his humanity
Speaker 1: is different from his divinion. But then the obvious objection
Speaker 1: here will be so they are distinct, but doesn't distinction
Speaker 1: mean multiplicity. Shouldn't that mean that after the unit there's
Speaker 1: still two natures? And this and again if the problem
Speaker 1: here is that severis want's unity of nature, unity of
Speaker 1: hypostasis out of two hypostasis. But the problem is, again,
Speaker 1: if you're going to try to say that they're distinct
Speaker 1: even after their synthesis, even after the union, the problem
Speaker 1: is distinction implies multiplicity. It doesn't mean imply division. It doesn't.
Speaker 1: In there view it does. But in our view we
Speaker 1: will say it doesn't imply division. But it still has
Speaker 1: to be distinct. And if it is distinct, if it
Speaker 1: is distinct, then there needs to be two natures even
Speaker 1: in that logic. And this is actually the argument the
Speaker 1: Answer to Jerusalem uses in his book against the Monophysites,
Speaker 1: where he tries to argue, well, you know, you still
Speaker 1: should be arguing for two natures, because this is the
Speaker 1: lat logical conclusion and a debates which we will get
Speaker 1: on later. But the debates that Servis has with Julian
Speaker 1: of holocarnosis is actually very much based on this question.
Speaker 1: It's very much based on whether distinction causes multiplicity or not.
Speaker 1: There's another proof of service of Antioch, meaning of Sarahciantich
Speaker 1: believing that distinction implies division, and that is letter letter two,
Speaker 1: Letters twenty two and twenty three. I will focus on
Speaker 1: letter letter twenty three in this instance. But he says
Speaker 1: in this letter that that there is a holy Trinity
Speaker 1: that is divided and distinct in hypostasis, but it is
Speaker 1: not divided in one essence. So what he's trying to
Speaker 1: say here is that he's really trying to protect the
Speaker 1: capitolciin theology. But because he believes distinction implies division and composition,
Speaker 1: something we talk about all the time, he has to
Speaker 1: say that the hypostasis are divided in the Trinity, and
Speaker 1: we won't say that he's willingly being tried to we don't.
Speaker 1: I don't think his intention is triteistic, but nevertheless it
Speaker 1: may lead to triteism. It does anticipate triteism in his
Speaker 1: in his theology, if you actually understand the implications of
Speaker 1: the hyposthesis being divided. But but what I wanna, what
Speaker 1: I want to focus on again is that for him,
Speaker 1: distinction implies division. Now to get onto the debate that
Speaker 1: he had with Julian of Holycarnossus. This is very important
Speaker 1: because Julian is an Aftartodocetist. He believes that Christ's humanity
Speaker 1: was impassable along with his divinity, and he believes that
Speaker 1: the natures had a non different difference. So in greet
Speaker 1: this withs so he says, oh, you know, the humanity,
Speaker 1: they are distinct, but at the same time they're not really.
Speaker 4: And his.
Speaker 1: Argument was that if this his argument, he understood that
Speaker 1: the distinction implied division, and he understood in the Severian
Speaker 1: system that Christ had distinct conditions. Right in his humanity
Speaker 1: he was passable, but in his divinity it's impassable. Right,
Speaker 1: So there's two distinct conditions that Christ has, and so
Speaker 1: he thinks that, well, this necessarily means that the properties
Speaker 1: are divided because they're distinct, and that will lead to
Speaker 1: division of natures and persons, which leads to Nestorianism. And
Speaker 1: then this is the rationale that Julian has in accusing
Speaker 1: Servers of Nestorianism ultimately, because Severus is trying to be
Speaker 1: ortholox in his system by saying that Christ is passable
Speaker 1: in his humanity. But ultimately Julian actually tries to be
Speaker 1: consistent with that system, and he says, no, actually, that
Speaker 1: is not possible, because if there's a distinction, that means division,
Speaker 1: that means there's a division that means there's a duality
Speaker 1: in Christ. That means there are two natures in Christ.
Speaker 1: And we can't accept that.
Speaker 2: And so this is.
Speaker 1: An example of a debate that he has. I think
Speaker 1: we will get onto that if I'm certain, yes, we
Speaker 1: will get onto that debate later when we're talking about energies.
Speaker 1: This is text eleven in the Service of Antioch book
Speaker 1: by Pauline Allen. This is text eleven, so you can
Speaker 1: go read there for yourself. I'm not making this stuff up.
Speaker 1: I read the text. I know what they're talking about.
Speaker 1: Now there's another debate that is important, and this is
Speaker 1: relevant too, into nature's meaning into essences. So there's John
Speaker 1: de Gramarian. He is what we will call it Curic Calcadonian.
Speaker 1: So he's one of the first curly Caulcadonian theologians in
Speaker 1: the scene, and he defends Kalkadon and he he he.
Speaker 1: The theology that he proposes is the theology, generally speaking,
Speaker 1: that we used today. He's different from the person of
Speaker 1: John Philipponos, by the way, who's a different person. They're not.
Speaker 1: They both call John de Gramarian, But this John de
Speaker 1: Gremarian is not the same as the philosopher John Philipponos.
Speaker 1: So this debate is very insightful because John the Gramarian
Speaker 1: has a very simple argument. His argument is essentially basically this.
Speaker 3: Look.
Speaker 1: All we did in the Council of Kalkadon is that
Speaker 1: we have the Capitolcian trinitarian terminology right where nature means essence,
Speaker 1: hypostasis means person. Right, we have this trinitarian terminology with us.
Speaker 1: All we did is apply that terminology to Christology. And
Speaker 1: so when we say into natures, the only thing we're
Speaker 1: really saying is that Christ is into essences. That's really
Speaker 1: what we're saying. And so since you too also believe
Speaker 1: that Christ is into essences, you uhoually accept Kalkadon. I mean,
Speaker 1: the argument is very simple, and this is also vindicated
Speaker 1: because we just spoke about this. Sat Leo also form
Speaker 1: meaning essence, right, so this vindicates Saint Leo as well.
Speaker 1: So Severus has two options here. He either says he
Speaker 1: either accepts the argument of John the Grammarian and he says, well,
Speaker 1: you know, if it means two essences, then I guess
Speaker 1: you guys are right. I guess you guys are really
Speaker 1: not that different from us. Or he can reject it.
Speaker 1: And as a matter of fact, what he does is
Speaker 1: he precisely does that. He precisely rejects into Nature's to
Speaker 1: mean into essences. And so this will go to everyone
Speaker 1: who thinks that Orientals have the same theology with us.
Speaker 1: Severus had the possibility to speak of into essences in Christ,
Speaker 1: so basically have vv of the into nature's formula. And
Speaker 1: he explicitly rejects this. This is in the third letter
Speaker 1: in Against the Grammarian. You can find this also in
Speaker 1: the Paulin Allen book on Serrus of Antioch. I believe
Speaker 1: this was text. I believe this was text eight, but
Speaker 1: don't quote me on that. I'm not one hundred percent
Speaker 1: to certain. But there's arguments. Okay, does he come to
Speaker 1: the conclusion that into nature's means to a heretical conclusion. Well,
Speaker 1: his argument, it shows showcases his inverse order theologist. So
Speaker 1: he says, we understand substance, we understand essence to mean
Speaker 1: a compendium of hypostasis. So if in Christ two essences
Speaker 1: were united, then the problem is that these two abstract
Speaker 1: essences were united, meaning that the entirety of the Trinity
Speaker 1: and entirety of humanity was incarnated. This is nonsense. So
Speaker 1: this is the argument that Serrus gives. The funny thing
Speaker 1: about this argument is that Nestorius uses the same exact
Speaker 1: argument against Saint curl. Saint Curyle says that God the
Speaker 1: Word assumed assumed flesh. Then we find the exact part
Speaker 1: this's answers. If God the Word became flesh, then all
Speaker 1: the Trinity must have become flesh, since the trinity is
Speaker 1: bound together as one nature. So this is the exact argument,
Speaker 1: and he means nature to mean essence. He used the
Speaker 1: same argument as in the story use did a century ago.
Speaker 1: And again this showcase the inverse or the theology, because
Speaker 1: they because you can only come to this conclusion that
Speaker 1: these abstract essences are united. In our view, if you
Speaker 1: start your theology with essence. Now, how now, what will
Speaker 1: be our response, What will we say if we came
Speaker 1: with this objection, we will say Christ possessed the fullness
Speaker 1: of the divine essence, but that doesn't mean that when
Speaker 1: he entered into a specific mode of being, that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that the Trinity also entered into that specific mode
Speaker 1: of being. So he possesses the fullness of the human essence,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't mean that when he does something, when
Speaker 1: he in terms of the mode of being the Trinity,
Speaker 1: it also goes along the same with humanity. So two
Speaker 1: nature's two essences can come into unity, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: affect the rest of the hypostasis in the sense that
Speaker 1: the rest of the hype states don't become hyposthetically incarnated
Speaker 1: with Christ. But this is a very i think, very
Speaker 1: basic level mistake that Service makes, and again not many
Speaker 1: people really talk about this. And this is the one
Speaker 1: chance that anti Koncaddians had in trying to understand orteology,
Speaker 1: and they completely rejected this. And so for all the
Speaker 1: humanists on both sides, this completely on both sides, This
Speaker 1: completely refutes the project that some people are trying to go.
Speaker 1: Do you have any comments, Jay, or should I move
Speaker 1: on to a mistake service makes about humanity being an energy.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean again, we're going to see the constant
Speaker 9: pattern of mistaking and characteristical properties of nature. So for us, body, mind, soul, will,
Speaker 9: and energy is the signifier or operation proper to a
Speaker 9: certain nature. So when a nature acts, we can know
Speaker 9: it by its energy. St Basils. So, for example, when
Speaker 9: Basil argues for the full divinity of the spirit, he
Speaker 9: does so on the basis of the fact that the
Speaker 9: spirit has the same uncreated energy as the Father and
Speaker 9: the Son. Anybody who's read Basil's works knows that that
Speaker 9: was a central key argument as to how he proved
Speaker 9: the full divinity of the spirit. So we're going to
Speaker 9: see this same pattern and Epizzol thirty eight at Basil,
Speaker 9: I would add, is very crucial to understand. I'm not
Speaker 9: just saying for you before this whole debate, because it's
Speaker 9: Saint Basil and the Cappadocians who will take us in
Speaker 9: the direction that the later fathers at Chalcedon at Ephesus
Speaker 9: it should be at Ephysis Calcedon, and constant num one
Speaker 9: and two it should be two and three. They will
Speaker 9: build on this theology. So our theology is going in
Speaker 9: a consistent direction, where nature person will, the properties of
Speaker 9: nature that apply to human nature, body, mind, soul will,
Speaker 9: those terms will become very precise and cons In archeology,
Speaker 9: energy will be very consistent. Right, Basil will argue the
Speaker 9: same thing against Eunomius. I just want to stress that
Speaker 9: for us, the Cappadocians are crucial here, and I think
Speaker 9: that it's it's very important that even though Severus and
Speaker 9: certain people will cite the Cave dooceans, I don't think
Speaker 9: that they really do them justice. And some of the
Speaker 9: Orientals even seem to question the cave doceans, don't they.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a I'm not going to name the website,
Speaker 1: but there's an Oriental website that refers to like heresies
Speaker 1: to be refuted. And one of the here sees that
Speaker 1: we have is essence energy's distinction, So they think that
Speaker 1: essence entity. Like, there's one website that is coming up
Speaker 1: that's a coptic website refers to essenti's distinction as heretical.
Speaker 1: So yeah, there are some people that do that. A
Speaker 1: response I got that was good is apparently Severus in
Speaker 1: some instances does apparently distinguish essence and energies. But we
Speaker 1: will actually get something relevant to that later like right now.
Speaker 1: But again, the significance of this debate that he had
Speaker 1: with John de Gramarion is that a lot of the
Speaker 1: arguments John de Gramayon used was really talking about the
Speaker 1: Cappadocian fathers, right. He used the Cappadocian fathers and used
Speaker 1: him in a Calcadonian way in order to debate against Severus.
Speaker 1: And I think I don't know if it's this letter
Speaker 1: or a previous letter against John de Gramarion, but I
Speaker 1: think Severus refers to him as a as a Nestorian
Speaker 1: atheist Jew. I don't remember like what exact terminology he used,
Speaker 1: but he like threw a lot of insults to John
Speaker 1: de Gramaryan. So this wasn't actually just like a minor
Speaker 1: dispute that he had, Like he was very passionate about
Speaker 1: these theological differences. He said that he said that John
Speaker 1: Gramarian was an Ammonite that was foreign to the laws
Speaker 1: of Israel, basically implying that like his church is Israel.
Speaker 2: Right, So.
Speaker 1: So yeah, like he's very like this isn't just something
Speaker 1: that like Severis wasn't like, oh, you know, this is
Speaker 1: what I think, but I might be wrong. No, this
Speaker 1: is something that I really do believe. And if and
Speaker 1: if we have a different point of view, then you're
Speaker 1: in history in eighties Jew and I really hate you.
Speaker 1: Like this is the kind of view he has for this.
Speaker 1: So he's very adamant on protecting protecting this view, which
Speaker 1: the same we cannot say for the Coptics today, the
Speaker 1: same we cannot say for some Ecumenists, even in the
Speaker 1: Orthodox camp today, in this regard, we can't I at least,
Speaker 1: even though he's referring to art side, I at least
Speaker 1: admire the passion he has for his beliefs in that sense,
Speaker 1: because I wish I saw that passionate other people, but
Speaker 1: instead we see ecumenism. But speaking of Severis, there's an
Speaker 1: interesting part in God History Dialectic. This is in well,
Speaker 1: this is in the volume one PDF. I don't know
Speaker 1: if the pages are different in the in the book itself,
Speaker 1: but this is in page two twenty three. He just
Speaker 1: Ferrell says that Severus used the term energy in two senses, right,
Speaker 1: So he does have a doction of energies, one as
Speaker 1: the source of act activity or operation, and two when
Speaker 1: he explains how the humanity itself is understood to be
Speaker 1: the operational energy of the deity within the incarnation. So
Speaker 1: to vindicate this, there are three sections. I'm going to
Speaker 1: read only one of them, but there's three sections in
Speaker 1: Severus's letter. One. This is to Ecumenicus where he actually
Speaker 1: says this. So this is letter one to Ecumenicus Severus
Speaker 1: of Antioch. He says that if then the Word changed,
Speaker 1: the manhood which he had hypostatic united to him, not
Speaker 1: into his nature, for he remained at which he was,
Speaker 1: but into his glory and operation, and things which manifestly
Speaker 1: belong to the flesh have come to belong to the
Speaker 1: Word in himself. How shall we allow that each of
Speaker 1: the forms performs its own acts. So he's referring to
Speaker 1: the tone of THEO obviously, but again three instances in
Speaker 1: the first letter he says the same thing, like, how
Speaker 1: the humanity is the operation or energy of the deity
Speaker 1: with an incarnation. So in the next page Pharaoh says
Speaker 1: two to the four. This entails two disturbing implications. Number one,
Speaker 1: is humanity energy of the deity of Christ in the
Speaker 1: sense of the actual process of the deities operation? Why
Speaker 1: extension is creation itself therefore God's energy, and therefore did
Speaker 1: God have to create as occurred in the originst problem?
Speaker 1: Or this is the second point is the humanity? But
Speaker 1: the object of the operation of the deity. Does the
Speaker 1: humanity not become, to use Servers's own words, a piece
Speaker 1: of wood or flint to be pushed about here and there,
Speaker 1: or to use Saint Augustine's words, a lump to be
Speaker 1: moved about by God from one state to another? As such?
Speaker 1: Does God will it each and every moment to be
Speaker 1: fearful in his humanity? Et cetera, and et cetera. And
Speaker 1: then we will get on to this later. Actually about
Speaker 1: this and how this, how Pharaoh actually makes a good
Speaker 1: case about this? And is this not capable of being
Speaker 1: understood in doucty sense? In this regard one must recall
Speaker 1: it several speaks of operation energy as the eruption of
Speaker 1: the will. Does one arise at the classical amounophysid form
Speaker 1: of one energy, one will, which has two sets of manifestations.
Speaker 1: This is crucial because a lot of people make this mistake.
Speaker 1: We will get to this more in debt, But a
Speaker 1: lot of people will see, like diotelite statements from severus
Speaker 1: and they will think that, oh, that means he believes
Speaker 1: in two wills. Well not actually, because in all of
Speaker 1: those statements he talks about it being displayed as two wills. So,
Speaker 1: for example, a statement I've heard severus says is that
Speaker 1: in the Crucifixion Christ displays two wills in sulvafic suffering,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people use that to say, oh,
Speaker 1: look we are diotelites. Well, actually, he says displays. That's
Speaker 1: the key word. He displays. There's two manifestations of the
Speaker 1: one divine human tandric will. And again we will get
Speaker 1: to this very much in detail, how this exactly happens,
Speaker 1: which will actually get to now exactly if you have
Speaker 1: anything to add, we will get to services theology and
Speaker 1: how the Oriental theology leads to mono energies monotelicism. This
Speaker 1: is the contrast even began.
Speaker 9: Right, This is the key thing to understand that the
Speaker 9: track of this debate goes in a certain way. So
Speaker 9: it's really difficult to try to dive into this issue
Speaker 9: and try to understand it or discuss it if you
Speaker 9: don't have the right entrance point, right, if you don't
Speaker 9: have the right place to come into the debate. If
Speaker 9: you come into debate at the time of Calcedon, you
Speaker 9: won't know that this moves into the subject of two
Speaker 9: energies and two wills. And this is why I say
Speaker 9: Maximus will be so so crucial, because Maximus will have
Speaker 9: a dispute with peis that I've talked about many times,
Speaker 9: and we're actually going to do a whole talk on
Speaker 9: this book. As I promised a long time ago. I
Speaker 9: just forgot about it. And what we're going to see
Speaker 9: is that there's a dialectic at work in the tension
Speaker 9: between There's an assumed natural tension on the part of
Speaker 9: people like Severus, between the human will and the divine will,
Speaker 9: whether in Man or in Christ. It's just assume that
Speaker 9: there's going to be some natural tenson. You actually see
Speaker 9: that natural tension in Augustine as well. So I want
Speaker 9: to stress to everybody the place to start on this topic.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 9: It is relevant if you do want to get into
Speaker 9: these topics, If you just dive in at Calston, it's
Speaker 9: going to be difficult, it's going to be confusing. So,
Speaker 9: of course, as we have recommended for many years, one
Speaker 9: of the great places to start is the dispute when
Speaker 9: the story is Saint Alexander and the Christological controversy of
Speaker 9: the John McGucken book, and then we have I would recommend,
Speaker 9: especially the Bradshaw book, because the latter chapters of the
Speaker 9: Bradshaw Book are actually going to show the Augustinian underlying
Speaker 9: assumptions of simplicity that will not only underlie the Western
Speaker 9: Latin tradition of the Triad and their errors on the
Speaker 9: Trinity and the Philly Oquay, but it's actually going to
Speaker 9: explain the Western notion of form and essence and simplicity,
Speaker 9: and this conditions the Christology. This is so important to
Speaker 9: understand is that the essence energy issue is not just
Speaker 9: about the Triad. It's crucially about Christology. And this comes
Speaker 9: to the forefront of the debate at the sixth Council.
Speaker 9: So when Saint Maximus argues this against Puris the Monothelite,
Speaker 9: who is the outworking of this metaphysicite Oriental sense of
Speaker 9: the term right, because we can understand metaphysis in an
Speaker 9: Orthodox way. By the time that it's being debated in
Speaker 9: Maximus's day Sat Maximus's day, the debate becomes about the
Speaker 9: natural tension between the human will and energy and the
Speaker 9: divine and so the debate, a lot of it will
Speaker 9: be about in this book Christ saying let this cup
Speaker 9: pass from me, and this will lead eventually to the
Speaker 9: denial of the gnomic will. So Christ not possessing a
Speaker 9: gnomic will necessitates that he's a strictly speaking, divine hypostasis
Speaker 9: who possesses a divine in human nature. Right, there's no
Speaker 9: created hypostasis in Christ, because if you possess a created hypostasis,
Speaker 9: the most likely there would be some notion of a
Speaker 9: gnomic will. But the argument is often made that he
Speaker 9: doesn't possess a gnomic will because he's a divine person.
Speaker 9: So the neo cyrillic defense is what wins out after
Speaker 9: the Calcedonian debates. So there's two three centuries afterwards of
Speaker 9: debate after Chalcidon as to what these terms in these
Speaker 9: words mean. And again, the solution to all of this,
Speaker 9: in my view, all this stuff, with the debates with
Speaker 9: the Orientals, is just simply understanding the consistent patterns of
Speaker 9: how we understand those words. It's beginning to be crystallized
Speaker 9: in the times of Athanaceous and into the Cappadocians. I'm
Speaker 9: not saying it wasn't true before that. It's just beginning
Speaker 9: to be crystallized as to what hypostasis means, as to
Speaker 9: what hypostatized means. It's particularly Leonchious of Jerusalem who really
Speaker 9: codifies in the Karellian sense, the notion of what in
Speaker 9: hypostatized means. And that's why this comes to dominate after
Speaker 9: that period, right after the time of Leonchius into the
Speaker 9: Six Council. The confession of Saint Sophronius is all saying
Speaker 9: what we say, right, So that's how we get to
Speaker 9: this notion that Christ possesses two wills two energies because
Speaker 9: energy is as Saint John Damascus all the way back
Speaker 9: to the Cappadians, Energy signifies the type of nature. If
Speaker 9: Christ possesses a human and divine nature, then he has
Speaker 9: to always possess two wills and two energies, even though
Speaker 9: they're not intension, they're always in symphonia. They're working together
Speaker 9: in Christ. That's the Orthodox view. So the human will
Speaker 9: is deified by the divine will and energy, as the
Speaker 9: Fifth and Six Council specify. As exposition of Orthodox Faithbook
Speaker 9: three specifies, Christ communicates to his humanity the divine glories
Speaker 9: of the uncreated energies. That means it raises and deifies
Speaker 9: as human nature, but it doesn't lose its natural properties.
Speaker 9: So there's always a human created aspect to Christ. Even
Speaker 9: though it's deified. It's never destroyed, it's never divided, it's
Speaker 9: never absolved. It always retains its natural properties even though
Speaker 9: it's deified. So when Jesus is resurrected, it's the same
Speaker 9: body that he had before he was resurrected, but it's deified.
Speaker 9: So in the same way, this is the model not
Speaker 9: just for Christology, it's the model for the essence, energy distinction,
Speaker 9: how God relates to and interacts with the world. It's
Speaker 9: the basis for Maximus's logos logi doctrine, right, because the
Speaker 9: logi interpenetrate all reality. They are the bases of all
Speaker 9: created reality, being the patterns and ideas and archetypes in
Speaker 9: the divine mind in the logos. That's why all things
Speaker 9: are made through the logos. Again, the logi or uncreated energies,
Speaker 9: and the same thing is going to be applied here
Speaker 9: in Christology, in the debate between the wills and the natures. Right,
Speaker 9: there's a balance here, there's a synergy here, and everything
Speaker 9: that David's telling you comes to the forefront in this
Speaker 9: dispute with puis all the stuff that I just said
Speaker 9: about the logi, the uncreated energy, that's all in this
Speaker 9: debate right here. That's the whole locus of this debate.
Speaker 9: This is what's cited at the sixth Council when Pope
Speaker 9: Saint Agatha's his letter about Christ possessing two wills and
Speaker 9: two energies, when San Sophronius writes his letter about Christ
Speaker 9: possessing two wills and two energies. This book here is
Speaker 9: the source for this. So what David is going to
Speaker 9: tell you right now is crucial to the solution of
Speaker 9: this whole issue. Yep.
Speaker 1: Because what I'm going to be talking about now, as
Speaker 1: John of Pephesus, who is also to my knowledge also
Speaker 1: part of the anti Calcadonian team, he says that Severus Philoxenus,
Speaker 1: these people are really the creators of the monoty that movement.
Speaker 1: So an objection that we hear genuinely is that a
Speaker 1: Pires was a Calcadonian. He's your problem. That's like a
Speaker 1: Muslim saying like arianism is your problem. I mean, it
Speaker 1: doesn't really make any sense. It's a problem for us
Speaker 1: because monotilitism is wrong. But in their theology many of
Speaker 1: their fathers actually teach that. But again I can feel
Speaker 1: for the anti calocus in the sense of, well, how
Speaker 1: like can you demonstrate how it is monotilaw is, how
Speaker 1: it is monel energies right, actually precisely, if that's what
Speaker 1: we're going to be doing right now. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to start with a quote from Severus in his Harmon
Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty five. He says that hypostasis does
Speaker 1: not deny Genus or Ussi or abold the shit, but
Speaker 1: it sets apart and limits in particular icons the one
Speaker 1: who subsists. Now, what does this really mean if you're
Speaker 1: talking about Ceverus's system And I also talked about this
Speaker 1: in the first stream. He believes that reality exists in
Speaker 1: three planes. So there's a trinitarian realm, there is the
Speaker 1: intelligible realm, the realm of the angels, right, and then
Speaker 1: there's a material world that we inhabit in right now.
Speaker 1: So it's key to understand that for him, like the
Speaker 1: unity of the hypostasis of Christ, it's not like two
Speaker 1: material substances that are mixed. Right, they each operate in
Speaker 1: their own reality. They're in synthesis, which is what we
Speaker 1: will also say it is a synthesis. Saint Kill himself
Speaker 1: says that the union is a synthesis. So in that
Speaker 1: point we agree it Severus that there is a synthesis.
Speaker 1: But because of his system, which is based on Plato,
Speaker 1: based on Platonism, and he's trying to basically christianize that system,
Speaker 1: I will say like he's attempting to at least christianize
Speaker 1: the system, unlike like trying to hellenizing it. But the
Speaker 1: problem is that in his system, these two natures, these
Speaker 1: two hypostasis, they operate in their own realms. So the
Speaker 1: vills operate in their own reality. So the divine will,
Speaker 1: the way it operates, it operates in the trinitarian realm.
Speaker 1: The problem here is is that CEUs himself says, I
Speaker 1: believe in hormily which one is eighty one. I believe
Speaker 1: harmily eighty one, where he talks about that the human
Speaker 1: will is an iconic representation of the divine will, just
Speaker 1: as the body is the iconic representation of the soul.
Speaker 1: So there's a synonymity here. So right, just like how
Speaker 1: the soul animates the body, so does the divine will
Speaker 1: animate the human will. And this is precisely what we
Speaker 1: mean by monoetulit in severus, it is the divinevill that
Speaker 1: animates the human will and gives it life. It's it's
Speaker 1: because that the human will is non self subsistent. It
Speaker 1: needs the divine will in order to exist, just like
Speaker 1: how the human hypostasis is non self subsistent. It requires
Speaker 1: the divine hypostasis in order to exist. So this applies
Speaker 1: to energies, and it also applies to the wills. And
Speaker 1: if you can, and if you if you're not convinced,
Speaker 1: you might say, ah, you know, that seems like a
Speaker 1: different argument. Well, let's hear from Severus himself. This is
Speaker 1: from text twenty six, his letter to John de Huguminos.
Speaker 1: He says that and he quotes from Saint Dionistius areopaguide, which, again,
Speaker 1: to be fair to Severus, he is quoting these people,
Speaker 1: and he considers Saint Dionistius as an authentic apostle. So
Speaker 1: to his credit, he tries to be patristic, and he
Speaker 1: tries to be logical with the Kappadocins. But here's what
Speaker 1: he says. He says that, as we have already written,
Speaker 1: this is to John the Hegumenus text twenty six of
Speaker 1: the Service of Antioch book from Paul and Allen, as
Speaker 1: we have already written extensively in other writings, we have
Speaker 1: understood and understand the statement of the old Holy Deonist
Speaker 1: Hystereopa Guide, who says, when God became human, he performed
Speaker 1: for us a new divine human tantric activity as meaning
Speaker 1: one composite activity. But this is what this, here is
Speaker 1: what he says that we will disagree with heavily. So
Speaker 1: so far it's good, but then he says, in our
Speaker 1: eyes it cannot be understood other than as a rejection
Speaker 1: of every duality. So here he is very obviously saying
Speaker 1: that we don't accept the duality of wills. And there's
Speaker 1: also numerous quotations that we have that we will get
Speaker 1: to where he believes that separate civil So this is
Speaker 1: this obviously strongly implies that Service rejects dietelicism, and this
Speaker 1: is his basis right. The tom of Leo was actually
Speaker 1: very crucial in the six Segumentical Council because precisely it
Speaker 1: spoke of two forms of operating, and two bills and
Speaker 1: two energies operating. And this is actually very this is
Speaker 1: the main part that he disagrees. So he disagrees with
Speaker 1: the tom of Leo not because of the two forms,
Speaker 1: but because the two forms have their own energies, have
Speaker 1: their own operations and their own wills. So this is
Speaker 1: from against Julian. This is text thirteen in the pauland
Speaker 1: Allen book, when when he's responding to Julian of Holycarnassus
Speaker 1: who says that Christ has a non different difference, right,
Speaker 1: he says, so, so Julian accuses servers of believing in
Speaker 1: two properties. Right, He said, oh, you believe in two properties,
Speaker 1: you believe in two natures, you believe in two operations
Speaker 1: and all that stuff. You're like the Calcedonians. And Sarah's
Speaker 1: response in reply to these things, we shall say, in short,
Speaker 1: one simple true word. Show us that we have written
Speaker 1: somewhere that Christ exists in two natures and into properties.
Speaker 1: But you cannot say so, for in every place each
Speaker 1: person discovers that our loveliness and anatomatizes those who divide
Speaker 1: the one Christ and the duplication of natures and after
Speaker 1: operations and their properties. Right, So notice how he talks
Speaker 1: about dividing the Christ into two operations in the duplication
Speaker 1: of operations of the natures. And this also, this statement
Speaker 1: is very crucial because he also implies again in a
Speaker 1: duplication of natures. Remember, for him, nature's hypostasis in a
Speaker 1: duplication of natures and of their operations and their properties.
Speaker 1: Now what's the problem. So for him, hypostasis is where
Speaker 1: energy and will resides. But there's a very simple objection
Speaker 1: to that. And you we talked about numerous times if
Speaker 1: if energy was proper to hypostasis, then they triteism, right exactly.
Speaker 1: So again this theology in another sense, we can show,
Speaker 1: we can see that this theology kind of leads to so.
Speaker 9: I mean typically the Orientals to reply to them, I mean,
Speaker 9: they just have to divide, they have to reject that.
Speaker 9: Uh that predicating back right into the triad, that there's
Speaker 9: a that there's a similarity between uh, nature, person and
Speaker 9: will and the triad and the way that nature, person
Speaker 9: and will function in anthropology and christology.
Speaker 1: Right, yep, Uh, I missed that kind of job. I'm
Speaker 1: sorry this is going to be yir, but I missed that.
Speaker 1: Can you repeat that again, I missed that do they?
Speaker 9: So You've interacted with a lot of those guys one
Speaker 9: on one more than I have, And I'm asking a
Speaker 9: question in terms I've wrote the theology that we're talking about,
Speaker 9: but I'm not interacted with a lot of these guys
Speaker 9: in terms of like debates and discussions. What I'm asking
Speaker 9: is is that do they? I mean, it seems to
Speaker 9: me that they would have to deny that there is
Speaker 9: a reading back or reflexive predication between the triad and Christology.
Speaker 9: In other words, wouldn't they just have to say, well,
Speaker 9: in the triad, it's not that way. We have one
Speaker 9: will in God, one energy, three hypostases, but in terms
Speaker 9: of the incarnation it's not that way. It's different.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Usually when I or like my friends who got
Speaker 1: the whole got these arguments from me, like when they
Speaker 1: make these arguments against Orientals, they they literally do not
Speaker 1: give an answer, which is very strange. So one instance
Speaker 1: that was pretty funny is that a friend of mine
Speaker 1: we're talking about, like, you know, why do you why
Speaker 1: do you reject duality in Christ and and and the Oriental?
Speaker 1: He replied with, well, duality presupposes separation, right because there's
Speaker 1: a distinction here. And then my friend obviously went on
Speaker 1: to say, well, but the persons in the trinity are distinct,
Speaker 1: does that mean the Trinity is divided? Not Actually severe
Speaker 1: says yes in the sense of hypostasis, but he literally
Speaker 1: got no answers from that. So yeah, there is there
Speaker 1: is like different applications of Christology and Trinitarian theology. It's
Speaker 1: kind of like double theology in that sense. And so far,
Speaker 1: I haven't really gotten any responses because usually again and
Speaker 1: most of these people, they will adamantly try to make
Speaker 1: their position the same as ours, right, they will try
Speaker 1: to adamantly be diotelites, even though as you can see,
Speaker 1: their father's reject diotelitism. I mean, he says there is
Speaker 1: no duality in Christ. Theandric will right. So the synthetic
Speaker 1: bill is one. So I haven't really heard any proper responses,
Speaker 1: and you're gonna have a hard time hearing a proper
Speaker 1: response usually because either they don't know of these things
Speaker 1: this is pretty like high level or actually that's pretty
Speaker 1: much most of the reason, or they just want to
Speaker 1: pretend to be like us. So that these are the
Speaker 1: main problems that occur in these debates. I'll continue on
Speaker 1: with some of the quotations of Servius. This is Serius
Speaker 1: letter forty seven. He says, considering the general benefit of
Speaker 1: a union of the Holy churches and demanding an open
Speaker 1: anatom of the things done as Kulcadon against the Orthodox
Speaker 1: faith and of the wicked tom of Leo, and of
Speaker 1: those who speak of two natures after the union, and
Speaker 1: the operations of these and their properties.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: So again, obviously he's not referring to two natures after
Speaker 1: the union, as to me in essence, right. If he
Speaker 1: meant that, then that will be even worse, because then
Speaker 1: he will be Utichian. But he means nature's nature to
Speaker 1: be hypostasis here, and the operations of the hypostasis of
Speaker 1: these and their properties. There's another example, letter thirty nine.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to read the entire thing, Actually, I wiel.
Speaker 1: It's also a man who accepts the right confession of
Speaker 1: the edict if it is enough for him, and he
Speaker 1: does not add the exact words which remove the heresy,
Speaker 1: opens the door to impiety through the ambiguity of the
Speaker 1: written words, and falls under the synthesis of the Holy
Speaker 1: gregory in that he is doing detriment to the truth.
Speaker 1: But if besides the edict, he both confesses one incarrtent
Speaker 1: nature of God the Word and anathematizes those who speak
Speaker 1: of two natures after the union, and the operations and
Speaker 1: properties of these, and all the impiety that was confirmed
Speaker 1: with Kalkadon. He has removed the danger that is expected
Speaker 1: from the ambiguity. So this is letter thirty nine. Another
Speaker 1: this is the final letter that I will read. This
Speaker 1: is his letter to Ecumenicus, Letter one. Accordingly, good doctrine
Speaker 1: is contained an end of the Syrian king. For it
Speaker 1: anathematizes those who divide the one son who has hyperstack
Speaker 1: united to flesh, into two natures, and the operations and
Speaker 1: properties of the same two natures. So again this is
Speaker 1: the main difference that they have with the tom of Leo.
Speaker 1: It's not really about nature per se, about the energy's
Speaker 1: bills and all that jazz. That's really the real difference here.
Speaker 9: Human will becomes an iconic representation of the divine will,
Speaker 9: and it's subjected to it. There's a dialectical definition of
Speaker 9: will and choice here. This is a critique that for
Speaker 9: all makes in the section on energy will an agency
Speaker 9: in the and the point there is to say once
Speaker 9: again that this whole position is predicated on dialectics. There
Speaker 9: has to be some natural tension between created and uncreated,
Speaker 9: between human will and divine will, between grace and nature.
Speaker 1: And we will talk exactly about that. So that's enough
Speaker 1: about Servius for now. I will introduce Pix Sinnes of
Speaker 1: Madbuck into this. So he was a bishop of modern
Speaker 1: day Montbisch. He was a contemporary of Severus of Antioch,
Speaker 1: and he's a huge deal. So if the vest has
Speaker 1: Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome, and Thomas Aquinas as their faces,
Speaker 1: then Orientals, at least in their mind, their faces will
Speaker 1: be Saint Kirol of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, and Philix
Speaker 1: Cinnus of Mabock. They will be like the faces of
Speaker 1: Oriental theology. The thing about Felix Sennus of Madboch is
Speaker 1: his theology is even more explicitly heretical. So if you
Speaker 1: look at page sixty eight and sixty nine in the
Speaker 1: book Three Monophysite Christologies, Seras of Fantic, filix Is of
Speaker 1: Mabig and Jacobo Sarug. This book was written by ROBERTA. Chestnut,
Speaker 1: Page sixty eight and sixty nine. Felix Senda says, Felixids
Speaker 1: believes in materialism, so he preaches materialism. He believes that
Speaker 1: the body is the densest, the soul is lighter, and
Speaker 1: God is the lightest being of false so he believes
Speaker 1: in some form of materialism. Having made that, note what
Speaker 1: he says in hormily in harmony twelve, he believes that
Speaker 1: the body and the soul have two vills at war
Speaker 1: with each other. So this is the body soul right,
Speaker 1: human body and soul. So the body has a has
Speaker 1: a vill and the soul has a will. And this
Speaker 1: raised an obvious question, right, how is it that we
Speaker 1: have one vill as human beings? Then if body and
Speaker 1: the soul has a vill and they are involved with
Speaker 1: each other, well, it's dialectics of opposition. The vills are
Speaker 1: in a synthetic union where they battle over each other.
Speaker 1: And if the body then right, if the bodily vill wins,
Speaker 1: it's adultery. If the soul wins, it's a good union.
Speaker 1: And this isn't harmonly twelve of Philoxenus of Mambog. He
Speaker 1: also goes on to say that the bodily will doesn't
Speaker 1: merely lust after food or sexual satisfaction or any of that.
Speaker 1: This is not what the body will is. It's literally
Speaker 1: about everything about the world. So philosophy, science, rationality, argumentation, debates.
Speaker 1: These are all lusts of the body. They're all part
Speaker 1: of the bodyvill and the soul lusts after the things
Speaker 1: of the spirit. Right, So for the spiritual realm, this
Speaker 1: is what the So it's like the soul is like
Speaker 1: this hyper pietistic, and the body is this like I
Speaker 1: will always debate it like this crazy debate maniac guy.
Speaker 1: If we were if we were personifying these two bodybuil
Speaker 1: body soulvills and these two as Philoxenis himself says, I
Speaker 1: post I told either screenshot Jay if you're showing that.
Speaker 1: In Harly ten eleven and twelve, he consistently says that
Speaker 1: the body and the soul are by nature opposed to
Speaker 1: each other. So by nature they're opposed to each other,
Speaker 1: according to Philix Sinus of mad Bog, So this is
Speaker 1: how humanity is from. And again, why are we talking
Speaker 1: about body and soul? Well, it deals with anthropology, but
Speaker 1: it also deals with Christ himself, right, it also deals
Speaker 1: with this also applies to Christ himself and his body
Speaker 1: and his soul. Now, some people might say, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: this is too far. We don't we reject that. Okay,
Speaker 1: they'll say this is too far, we don't agree with everything.
Speaker 1: Philoxin says, well, that's a problem because Severus and philox
Speaker 1: Sinnus were good friends. They knew each other, they knew
Speaker 1: what they believed, they knew each other. So we will
Speaker 1: say philox Innes doesn't have he doesn't have a different christology.
Speaker 1: He compliments. I will say Severus's Christology, because as I said,
Speaker 1: they're both in the same team. They both they both
Speaker 1: very well know each other. But to repeat on the
Speaker 1: on the on the human will, on how the human
Speaker 1: will is formed. Again, the human will is synthetically formed,
Speaker 1: just like how the divine and human will are synthetically formed.
Speaker 1: We call this the tiandric vill and these are in
Speaker 1: opposition with each other. And just like that, the divine
Speaker 1: will and the human will are also by nature in
Speaker 1: opposition to one another. There's an example. So there's an
Speaker 1: example of Service of Antioch where he speaks of again
Speaker 1: Christ displaying two wills in sulif excepting He then goes
Speaker 1: on to say that that Christ, in his humanity, was
Speaker 1: very fearful and Philix Sinistan's service both agree that he
Speaker 1: was more fearful than a normal human. Bul right, he
Speaker 1: was incredibly fearful, but at the same time he had
Speaker 1: divine courage. And what Saint Maximus will say in response
Speaker 1: to this is that fear and courage are both human emotions, right,
Speaker 1: So there these both pertain to the human will of Christ.
Speaker 1: They're not in dialectical tension, right. The human will wasn't
Speaker 1: scared and the divine will was. We'll say, oh, you
Speaker 1: know whatever, it's fine. There wasn't any tension like that
Speaker 1: between those two. But in their view, in the Oriental view,
Speaker 1: there is a tension. And what's really important again, this
Speaker 1: will is synthetic, just like how christ will is synthetic.
Speaker 1: A huge implication, and we can see from Servius himself
Speaker 1: and most likely Filoxcentus, they both reject epicatus stasis, and
Speaker 1: that's obviously because they want to follow the fathers, right,
Speaker 1: so we can credit them for that. They're trying to
Speaker 1: remain orthodox. But the problem is in their theology. If
Speaker 1: the divine will in Christ animated the human will, then
Speaker 1: how is it that in the recapitulation, how is it
Speaker 1: that Christ is not gonna animate or human wills. Again,
Speaker 1: how is it that because in Christ the human will
Speaker 1: was subsumed and was dominated by the divine will, then
Speaker 1: that logically follows the same should be happening in the Esctan. Therefore,
Speaker 1: universalism should actually be true. Isn't that truth? Shouldn't In
Speaker 1: the Oriental view, universalism be the consistent theological truth instead
Speaker 1: of whatever version of apricateastasis they have. So someone Stephen
Speaker 1: barstud Highly even takes this one step further and he
Speaker 1: says that and he's a heretic according to the Oriental position,
Speaker 1: but his view is very interesting because I think it's
Speaker 1: logically consistent. He says that not only will we all
Speaker 1: be said, but we will all be consubstantial with God himself.
Speaker 1: So again, this position is heretical in the Oriental Church.
Speaker 1: So this is not an attack against Oriental churche. But
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that this is what logically should follow
Speaker 1: if you have this doctrine of phils, this is what
Speaker 1: should be happening. Because if, again, if in Christ, the
Speaker 1: divine will dominates the human will, then who's to say
Speaker 1: the same won't be happening to us. That's why we
Speaker 1: have a synergy of the human and divine wills. We
Speaker 1: don't have an opposition, because the moment you have an opposition,
Speaker 1: there are many different theological problems that come out of that.
Speaker 1: So that's Wold. And if you look at Jacob of Saruk,
Speaker 1: just a small chapter on him on Hills, he himself
Speaker 1: like he absolutely believes that there's one nature of one veil,
Speaker 1: one energy. Like he's very open about that. And he's
Speaker 1: a saint in the Truth is an important scene, not
Speaker 1: theologically speaking, but as a general saint, he is very
Speaker 1: important in the communion. So do you have anything to
Speaker 1: add about Vill's j.
Speaker 9: Because that will be that it's important to understand that
Speaker 9: the movement and action and property will can't be defined
Speaker 9: after the fall a post Lapsarian doctrine of a defining
Speaker 9: free will. It's part of what affects the western Augustinian definition.
Speaker 9: So you don't have an Augustine, for example, any notion
Speaker 9: of the ability to choose between multiple goods. And this
Speaker 9: actually comes into the debate with the Monothelites in terms
Speaker 9: of Paris and the way that Saint Maximus will debate
Speaker 9: with heroes. He'll actually make the argument that if there's
Speaker 9: only one sense that we are directing our gaze towards,
Speaker 9: then the originistic definition of free will being defined as
Speaker 9: a choice between good and evil is by necessity married
Speaker 9: to the notion of turning the gaze away from the one,
Speaker 9: the essence of the One. This is another reason why
Speaker 9: we can't hold to the beatific vision. So this is
Speaker 9: absolutely connected to what we're talking about in terms of Christology,
Speaker 9: because in the Esketon, we're not just staring into the
Speaker 9: beatific vision of the essence of God. That's why the
Speaker 9: Eastern fathers nowhere teach this. They teach that we see,
Speaker 9: as Saint Maximus says, the many things around God in
Speaker 9: the Esketon the vision of God, and the Esketon is
Speaker 9: the vision of the uncreated logie, and so that's a
Speaker 9: direct experience of God. But it's also the ability to
Speaker 9: retain free will. How do we retain free will if
Speaker 9: there's no evil? Because evil? Free will is not defined
Speaker 9: dialectically between a choice of good and evil. That's only
Speaker 9: characteristic of the fallen state. When we're not in the
Speaker 9: fallen state anymore, there's the ability to chew use and
Speaker 9: to move the will as a choice between multiple goods,
Speaker 9: and so all of the church fathers will define free
Speaker 9: will as the ability to make choices this thing or
Speaker 9: that thing. But if there's only the essence of God,
Speaker 9: then you can't potentially or possibly actually choose or will
Speaker 9: anything other than the essence of God. This is very
Speaker 9: crucial because absolute define simplicity is not just a doctrine
Speaker 9: of denying the essence synergy distinction, and also applies to Christology.
Speaker 9: It makes Christology impossible. It leads to the dialectical tension
Speaker 9: in people like Severus in the way that they define simplicity.
Speaker 9: Severus will actually use the neoplatonic definition of what simplicity
Speaker 9: is when he talks about what these natures are in themselves,
Speaker 9: and so he makes them reducible into one dimensional categories
Speaker 9: in terms of what nature is or is supposed to be,
Speaker 9: especially in the incarnation. And so this has an effect
Speaker 9: on one's doctrine of free will and choice. And so
Speaker 9: in the Esketon, all those positions that believe in the
Speaker 9: beatific vision in the Roman Catholic Latin sense, they all
Speaker 9: deny free will. In the Escaton redefine it to say, well,
Speaker 9: your will is truly free now because you don't make choices,
Speaker 9: you only choose the essence of God. That's a complete rejection,
Speaker 9: in denial of what all the church fathers taught free
Speaker 9: will was. Did Christ possess free will when he was incarnate?
Speaker 9: Of course he did. Did he only will one thing?
Speaker 9: Did he only will the essence of God? I mean,
Speaker 9: it's ridiculous, right, No, Christ, just as God can can
Speaker 9: freely will to do different things. God freely chose to
Speaker 9: create the world. Christ freely walked around and willed to
Speaker 9: do what he did, and he freely willed in both
Speaker 9: of his natures right, the human will and will were
Speaker 9: freely operating.
Speaker 1: Sorry I interrupted you, ja, but I was gonna I
Speaker 1: was gonna add. The oriental response to this, The oriental
Speaker 1: view will be that since God is good, like he's
Speaker 1: marebely good, then there is no kind of like there
Speaker 1: is free will. But because God is good, the feeble
Speaker 1: aspect is only in the human wild, if that makes sense.
Speaker 1: In contrast to like how they will view this, this
Speaker 1: builds question mm hmm, go ahead, all right, I'll go ahead.
Speaker 1: I guess in this I think I dealt with wills.
Speaker 1: I want to kind of talk about to move on.
Speaker 1: I want to move on to Phillixinus's eucharistic problems. I
Speaker 1: mentioned this in the first stream as well with Jay.
Speaker 1: So there are two. So Christ, for Philoxinus exists as
Speaker 1: God by nature and as a man by miracle. So
Speaker 1: there's like two different modes of existences. There's a miraculous
Speaker 1: existence that that he exists out by the virtue of
Speaker 1: his will and his natural existence as God. Now this
Speaker 1: is relevant because this goes into the eucharistic theology. And
Speaker 1: so as an example I used is, let's say that
Speaker 1: you're an atheist and you're anti Caan Church, and phillix
Speaker 1: Sinus is right there like looking at you, and you
Speaker 1: take the Euchrist. Your atheist, you don't believe in anything,
Speaker 1: but you somehow manage to take the Eucharist, and you
Speaker 1: come back to Philixinus and you're like, hey, I took
Speaker 1: the Euchrist and you said that I was. You guys
Speaker 1: say that I was going to get that, but nothing
Speaker 1: happened to me. And philix sins will respond to that, well, yes,
Speaker 1: because you don't have faith. You don't have faith, so
Speaker 1: the way you observe the Euchrist, that's just mere bread
Speaker 1: and wine. But if you had faith. Right, the mode
Speaker 1: which the Euchrist will exist via those who have faith
Speaker 1: is that it will really be the body and blood
Speaker 1: of Christ. Now, this in a sense makes some sense,
Speaker 1: but the problem is that if you apply this to
Speaker 1: Christ then there are some problems. Right. For example, if
Speaker 1: you don't have faith, then is Christ God? And this
Speaker 1: kind of makes people make enables a question to be
Speaker 1: asked to philixins and leads to certain rabbit holes. That's
Speaker 1: pilix Sinnis himself will reject, but his understanding of being
Speaker 1: by nature and being by faith, and there's kind of
Speaker 1: two levels, two modes of being, enables problematic conclusions. So
Speaker 1: the argument I'm making here is that if the Euchrist
Speaker 1: changes depending on how you view the Eucharist, then naturally,
Speaker 1: by that logic, Christ should be changing depending on how
Speaker 1: you view Christ. Right, So if you look at the
Speaker 1: Euchrist without faith, obviously Philoxenus will say, well, obviously as
Speaker 1: bread and wine. But if you have faith, that will
Speaker 1: be the body blood of Christ. So if Christ was
Speaker 1: in front of us, will Christ will be? Will he
Speaker 1: be a mere human being? If I didn't have faith? Well,
Speaker 1: this this is some kind of like a relativistic understanding
Speaker 1: of reality and to finance. This is kind of like
Speaker 1: the end. But I would like to talk about Jacob
Speaker 1: of sarug who's by the way to a as a
Speaker 1: small as side. He is in the two thousand and
Speaker 1: four Roman Martyrology, so he's a saint in the Latin
Speaker 1: rights as well. So good job in Roman Catholics. But
Speaker 1: and he's an anticocatoon right, he wasn't in communion with
Speaker 1: Orthodox Church. So there's some really problematic things that Jacob says.
Speaker 1: I'm going to list some of them in Harmony fifty three.
Speaker 1: He says that the disciples ask Jesus. He's talking about Judas, right,
Speaker 1: the disciples ask Jesus, who has gone out of the
Speaker 1: sphere of the sphere of the light of our Lord
Speaker 1: to go and mix with the darkness in a great,
Speaker 1: great movement. So there are multiple senses in mixture is used.
Speaker 1: And most of the time, if you're talking about philoxiniesen Severus,
Speaker 1: when they speak of a mixture, they don't mean it
Speaker 1: in a heterodox sense, right, They don't really mean it
Speaker 1: in a heterodox sense. It's they're limited by their own terminology.
Speaker 1: But Jacob, in that sense, when he's speaking of Judas's
Speaker 1: essence mixing with the darkness. He is first of all,
Speaker 1: saying that evil has a real existence, that it's not
Speaker 1: a mere privation, but it actually exists. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, Judas is essence mixed with evil, and that's
Speaker 1: and this is actually a Gnostic idea that Jacob uses.
Speaker 1: And as a matter of fact, like I'm not going
Speaker 1: to talk about every single nasticizing thing that Jacob says,
Speaker 1: but if you read the book ROBERTA. Chestnuts Treatment off
Speaker 1: side Christologist Severus of Antioch, Felixus of madbook Jacob of Sarrug,
Speaker 1: if you read the section about Jacob of Surug, there's
Speaker 1: many different things that are nasticizing. Does that mean that
Speaker 1: he is gnostic? I don't think he is by intention,
Speaker 1: but the stuff that he says has a lot of
Speaker 1: gnostic messagery. So he refers to Christ, he refers to
Speaker 1: the Mother of God, to Mary as as some sort
Speaker 1: of an envelope, like he's some sort of like a
Speaker 1: sacred secret envelope that is hidden from people and these
Speaker 1: small minor gnostic teams. Again, so I won't say that
Speaker 1: he's gnostic theologically speaking, but there's another.
Speaker 9: Thing that he says as it Severus or Jacob Jacob.
Speaker 1: I don't think Jacob is intentionally being gnostic, but a
Speaker 1: lot of the teams that he talks about is definitely
Speaker 1: like I think.
Speaker 9: I mean, the crazy part about Severus that struck me
Speaker 9: was the discussions about the uh, the unknowability of the
Speaker 9: Father and that you have to have this sort of
Speaker 9: ascent in Christ.
Speaker 7: And then this is the.
Speaker 9: Neoplotonic doctrine of a cent actually of emanation everything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, in Letters sixty five he actually talks about how
Speaker 1: the sun is. I believe this is cited in the
Speaker 1: Chestnut book as well. In Letters sixty five, Syrus talks
Speaker 1: about how Christ is the object of the contemplation of
Speaker 1: the Father. So there's some aspect of logos theology here,
Speaker 1: like world logos theology. But it's also the same thing
Speaker 1: that Arian said, right, I mean, and a lot of
Speaker 1: gnostics said to justify the createdness of Christ again, and yeah,
Speaker 1: that team also exists in Serius, and again it's in
Speaker 1: Letters sixty five. Very it's it's a long letter where
Speaker 1: he deals with multiple questions. Some of them are triological questions,
Speaker 1: some of them are dealing with theopaschism. Some of them
Speaker 1: are dealing with other theological stuff. But I believe in
Speaker 1: the first part he kind of talks about that that
Speaker 1: Christ is the object of the contemplation of that. Does it?
Speaker 1: Don't the Roman Catholic say the same thing? Or am
Speaker 1: I wrong? Good day?
Speaker 9: How did you phrase it? Say it again?
Speaker 1: The Chestnut book speaks of Christ being the object of
Speaker 1: the contemplation of the Father, so he is the object
Speaker 1: of Father's contemplation.
Speaker 9: Sometimes that's in some of the logos apologist speak this way.
Speaker 9: I think Tretoline speaks that way there. Some of that
Speaker 9: could be in the Cappa Docians off the top of
Speaker 9: my head, but yeah, we have I have to look
Speaker 9: at the actual texts. But it depends. So maybe not
Speaker 9: that terminology itself, because you could find and some of that,
Speaker 9: and the early apologists will make usage of that, but
Speaker 9: then they sort of make a lot of mistakes. People
Speaker 9: like tation and people like that, So we have to
Speaker 9: be really careful that or have to see the exact
Speaker 9: the way that they do appropriate the psychological analogy of
Speaker 9: mind and will the father mind will breath. This kind
Speaker 9: of stuff is pretty common even in the Eastern Fathers
Speaker 9: but the problem is that they still couch it within
Speaker 9: the context of Orthodox theology and Christology, whereas in Roman Catholicism,
Speaker 9: or in what we're seeing here, because you get a
Speaker 9: and oftentimes a smushing of nature into person, of properties
Speaker 9: into essence, of energy into essence. That's where it starts
Speaker 9: to become problematic because now we're getting we're confusing the
Speaker 9: energies of the Godhead with the persons. Right, So the
Speaker 9: Spirit is the love of God in a strict identity.
Speaker 9: You see, the logos is quite literally the reason of
Speaker 9: the Father and not the manifestation of the reason of
Speaker 9: the Godhead. Because reason, if we're talking to the divine
Speaker 9: mind here. Okay, mind is a property of nature. So
Speaker 9: all three hypostases possess the divine mind. So the Son,
Speaker 9: in a unique mode manifest He manifests in his unique
Speaker 9: mode the mind of God, as does the Spirit, and
Speaker 9: as does the Father. But we wouldn't identify the logos
Speaker 9: with the mind of God in a strict identification. Does
Speaker 9: that make sense? So you see the same problem here
Speaker 9: is just once again in a lot of these errors
Speaker 9: and heresies, whether it's Roman Catholics and whether it's these
Speaker 9: guys the mistake is to reduce essences or natures, or
Speaker 9: beings or persons to their properties or to their faculties.
Speaker 1: All right, And the final thing that I was going
Speaker 1: to add is is about another concept that Jacob speaks.
Speaker 1: This is very interesting because he says, I believe thiss.
Speaker 1: In Hobbily one twenty five, he says, before the created things,
Speaker 1: the father sealed the image of his son, and ford
Speaker 1: formed him and showed how he will shine among the
Speaker 1: earthly beings. The father looked at the image of his
Speaker 1: son and formed Adam. Because of this, he said, he said,
Speaker 1: let us make man in our image, in this image
Speaker 1: of the child of Mary, the only begone. So we
Speaker 1: will say that we have made an image of God.
Speaker 1: But Jacob actually Harmly hundred and twenty five is saying
Speaker 1: that we're made in the image of Christ. We particularly
Speaker 1: made the image of the incarnate Christ. So God sees
Speaker 1: the future, sees the Christ, and sees Christ in the
Speaker 1: future and forms your image based on him. And I
Speaker 1: would say this is interesting, but it also denies that
Speaker 1: we're made in the image of the triune grad. So
Speaker 1: this has a huge problem in the theologist. Jacob and
Speaker 1: I will say this all of this stuff will be
Speaker 1: pretty hard for me to recap. But all of this
Speaker 1: stuff is pretty much what I had to talk about today,
Speaker 1: unless you have something else to add in, something else
Speaker 1: that you want me to talk about, which we can
Speaker 1: or if we could go to the super chants. What
Speaker 1: do you say, Jay?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I want to remind you by that if you
Speaker 9: want more on this, you can subscribe to David's channel.
Speaker 9: He has a really extensive analysis in his most recent
Speaker 9: three part series of these issues. I would again stress that,
Speaker 9: so if you do have Got History Dialectic, Volume one,
Speaker 9: this discussion of what we're talking about takes place on
Speaker 9: about page two twenty five, roughly up to the end
Speaker 9: of the book, where he talks about these faculties and
Speaker 9: these energies and these wills being in opposition. But that
Speaker 9: is a pretty advanced approach if you're new to this topic.
Speaker 9: I want to stress that the place to begin the
Speaker 9: Christological debates, I wouldn't even say jump to Pope Saint
Speaker 9: Leo's tome. It helps to have this in your mind.
Speaker 9: This is the best introduction to the issues and the
Speaker 9: debates within the storia is because Arianism and Astorianism kick
Speaker 9: off the problems that David is talking about, right, because
Speaker 9: it's Cyril who will use the miaphysis formula, which we
Speaker 9: would read in an orthodox way to mean not a
Speaker 9: denial of the retaining of the two properties of the
Speaker 9: two natures. I would also recommend after the Syrial book,
Speaker 9: or you could start with this one, please read the
Speaker 9: Bradshaw book if you really want to get into these
Speaker 9: topics and read the whole book. Don't read the first
Speaker 9: half of it just about Aristotle, because he will get
Speaker 9: up into the conclusions of these issues, all the way
Speaker 9: into Augustine and into Aquinas and the contrasting of Palamas
Speaker 9: and Aquinas, and the contrasting of Saint Maximus in terms
Speaker 9: of the logos and the logi, and how that's not
Speaker 9: the same thing as what you get in the Latin tradition.
Speaker 9: Bradshaw one of the authorities on these topics, right, He's
Speaker 9: everything you've ever heard me say is really just echoing
Speaker 9: what Bradshaw has said. And Bradshaw is going to vindicate
Speaker 9: all the stuff that David just said. Now he's not
Speaker 9: talking about the oriental issues. But what I'm trying to
Speaker 9: tell you is that the philosophical assumptions that underlie the
Speaker 9: debate of all the Orientals in the Monophysite blah blah blah,
Speaker 9: all that stuff up into the Mono Thelites and the
Speaker 9: Mono Innergists is the same philosophical assumptions that this book
Speaker 9: is about, all the way up into Severus. So these
Speaker 9: are crucial texts. They're very key. And if you read
Speaker 9: these texts and you understand them, I highly recommend it.
Speaker 9: Please read the David Bradshaw book. The Frail book is great,
Speaker 9: but it's a little more advanced, right, And if you
Speaker 9: don't want to go into that, just read the Dispute
Speaker 9: with Purists. You'll see all the stuff that you've heard
Speaker 9: me say for all these years, all this stuff I
Speaker 9: constantly repeat. I mean, it's all right here. I'm not
Speaker 9: making this stuff up. I mean, David, let me ask
Speaker 9: you a question. So a year ago, when you and
Speaker 9: I started interacting a lot on my discord and we
Speaker 9: were having a lot of these discussions. I'm not just
Speaker 9: trying to tellt myself, but I wanted to get your
Speaker 9: account of this. Now that you have doved, dived, diven,
Speaker 9: you've jumped into this issue for the last year, would
Speaker 9: you say that you see the symphony of the topics
Speaker 9: that I originally was arguing with you, not that you
Speaker 9: were disagreeing, but trying to explain to you a year ago.
Speaker 9: Does it not seem to cohere? Do the issues not
Speaker 9: make sense? Does it not? Does it not make sense?
Speaker 1: Now? Obviously it does. I mean one of the first
Speaker 1: I could give you an example when it came to
Speaker 1: the essence and ES's distinction. A mistake I made, for example,
Speaker 1: is that I looked at like the issue so much
Speaker 1: how to mine essence energies distinction the fathers. But once
Speaker 1: you read the Fathers, for example, the principle, you talk
Speaker 1: a lot about distinction, not meaning composition or division. I
Speaker 1: see it in any like in Christology regularly right as
Speaker 1: opposed to the things you talk about or the things
Speaker 1: that the Orthodox Church fathers talk about. I don't see that,
Speaker 1: for example, intomism. I don't see any toomism in the
Speaker 1: Church Fathers. I do see a lot of the stuff
Speaker 1: that you told me you were talking about.
Speaker 9: Yeah, there's a whole section in here about how the
Speaker 9: logi are not the same thing as Augustine's exemplars, and
Speaker 9: Augustine's exemplar doctrine passes directly into Thomas Aquinas. Yes, Thomas
Speaker 9: Aquinas has differences with Augustine on the doctrine of illumination.
Speaker 9: They have two different notions of divine illumination. It doesn't
Speaker 9: really matter because the Doctor of simplicity is exactly the
Speaker 9: same and so therefore the exemplar doctrine of the Latin
Speaker 9: Church is not the same thing as the Logi doctrine,
Speaker 9: and so therefore natural theology in the Tomistic sense is
Speaker 9: not and cannot be the Orthodox position.
Speaker 1: Exactly. And what I was going to add, but I
Speaker 1: wanted to thank you, David.
Speaker 9: So let's now that you've dived into these issues, would
Speaker 9: you agree Where would you start if you wanted to
Speaker 9: really research the topic, Like what have you found to
Speaker 9: be the most kind of beneficial, advantageous.
Speaker 1: Works and in regards to Oriental like Anticulcidonian theology, Okay,
Speaker 1: in terms of disputing like in terms of disputes, obviously,
Speaker 1: start with the Father and McCain book. That's what I
Speaker 1: started with. After reading that, I think I read God
Speaker 1: History Dialected to get more scope, but it's kind of unrelated.
Speaker 1: A lot of arguments that I got is from God
Speaker 1: History Dialected. But I will say, it depends on what
Speaker 1: you're worried about. So for example, if you want to
Speaker 1: if you're worried about specific points, like in my case,
Speaker 1: when I start to understand Orthodox theology a lot more,
Speaker 1: what I did, for example, is that I looked into
Speaker 1: certain characters like Theodore It of Cyrus. For example, I
Speaker 1: read Ernistus by Theodore It of Cyrus, and that really
Speaker 1: helped me a lot, because I saw the things that
Speaker 1: Saint kill said in him, and it really helped me
Speaker 1: a lot. If you want like direct, if you want
Speaker 1: diaphysicism in the Church Fathers and this currently Calcadonian argumentation,
Speaker 1: I will recommend you to check out Leonti's of Jerusalems
Speaker 1: against them onoph Sizes. I did a book review of
Speaker 1: that in part three of the of the video series.
Speaker 1: If you want to understand sever in theology like what
Speaker 1: Servus himself says, I think you can go to first
Speaker 1: hand sources if you understand the terminology. So the best
Speaker 1: book you can get is that Robert the Chestnut book
Speaker 1: The trem on off site Christologies. You can get Serrus
Speaker 1: of Antioch book on Servius of Antioch by Paulin Allen.
Speaker 1: If you want to read him directly. If you want
Speaker 1: to read about the Council of Kalkadon, I would have
Speaker 1: said the Defense of the Kalkadon the Defense of the
Speaker 1: Council of Calculu in the East by Patrick Gray will
Speaker 1: be great. The problem is there's only like three books
Speaker 1: available online and the cheapest one is like seventy seven dollars,
Speaker 1: so I don't think that's possible. That's why I'm probably
Speaker 1: going to try the book review of that sometime. But
Speaker 1: if you want to read about the Counts of Calculu,
Speaker 1: you can read the Acts of the Council of Kalkadon.
Speaker 1: And oh yeah, there's also I didn't read it yet,
Speaker 1: but I think The Byzantine Christ by Demetrius Patrellos is
Speaker 1: also relevant to this basically any any if you look
Speaker 1: at my announcement stream, I cite all of the books
Speaker 1: that I read and I will be using in in
Speaker 1: the in the future, in the future videos I will
Speaker 1: be making, which I made like all of them basically
Speaker 1: right now, including this one. Those books are what you
Speaker 1: should be looking for, I think, and it's very important
Speaker 1: to understand these clearly Culcadonian theology and theological theological points
Speaker 1: because it will help, It will actually change the debate
Speaker 1: for you. For me, the first time I heard arguments,
Speaker 1: I thought they meant nature is is Ussia, and that's
Speaker 1: what I kind of I was kind of complacent. I
Speaker 1: was like, oh, you know, it's so silly that they
Speaker 1: will believe that Cristi is only divide haha. And then
Speaker 1: understanding these things, understand this debate, help me really get
Speaker 1: the debate. And that's the best thing you can do,
Speaker 1: because many people, except for me and Jay, I think
Speaker 1: like they won't really be helpful in this regard. There
Speaker 1: you will either hear like arguments that are that are
Speaker 1: straw men that don't represent the oriental position will or
Speaker 1: you will hear arguments saying, oh, be actually believe the
Speaker 1: same thing. So basically two groups of people that don't
Speaker 1: really understand what's going on will say all of this stuff.
Speaker 1: And so the books that I mentioned in parts here,
Speaker 1: ultimately you should read all of them, I think, but
Speaker 1: if you want in order, if you're like completely, if
Speaker 1: you don't have any knowledge, the Alexandra book by far
Speaker 1: John McGuckin is great. And then I will say for me,
Speaker 1: I mean the Goddess to Dialectic book was really it
Speaker 1: wasn't as advanced as I think it will be. I
Speaker 1: kind of understood a lot of this stuff, but maybe
Speaker 1: that's because I kind of expected some of the stuff
Speaker 1: to be said there, old lady. But I think that
Speaker 1: will also like, because if you don't understand general Christology,
Speaker 1: you're going to have a very hard time read getting
Speaker 1: some of the arguments that many for Saints make. Now
Speaker 1: let's say, yes, book would be great.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I would say if you want a introduction to
Speaker 9: the bigger picture here, And I'm thinking about doing a
Speaker 9: lecture just on this because I found my old notes.
Speaker 9: I took about one hundred pages of notes ten years
Speaker 9: ago on multiple works that relate to this topic. So
Speaker 9: I actually have a whole folder here. It's just nothing
Speaker 9: but my one hundred pages of notes that I took
Speaker 9: on the Pelicon series. The Pelicon series is great, so
Speaker 9: it covers we're mainly only concerned with like the first
Speaker 9: you know, thousand years and then into the Middle Ages,
Speaker 9: so we're not really concerned with modern Protestantism in modern theology.
Speaker 9: The two in this it's a five volume series, but
Speaker 9: the first three of the Pelicons that are really good.
Speaker 9: So I think in the near future. We will also
Speaker 9: do an analysis from one hundred pages of notes I took.
Speaker 9: And then if somebody wants another, let's say I had
Speaker 9: another introductory Yeah, another introductory book to these topics is
Speaker 9: also Pelican's Christianity and Classical Culture, right, And so yes,
Speaker 9: he will talk a lot about natural law. He will
Speaker 9: talk a lot about the principles of nature, as does
Speaker 9: Saint Maximus. But does that mean the same thing as Thomism, right,
Speaker 9: So no, it's not word concept fallacy. So if you
Speaker 9: want maybe a broader perspective to start with these topics,
Speaker 9: these are the books that I would recommend. And then,
Speaker 9: of course, don't forget the Saint Justinian himself has a
Speaker 9: great work on the person of Christ.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's actually a good point.
Speaker 9: So those are all are all good. And then let's
Speaker 9: look at some of the super chats that.
Speaker 7: We have here.
Speaker 9: I got stacks of books falling over here. All right,
Speaker 9: let's see we've got a few here. Robert Taylor five dollars,
Speaker 9: not the previous Robert Taylor, the different Robert Taylor. I
Speaker 9: read the Hoffman's Cult Renaissance Church of Rome, and he
Speaker 9: complements orthodox ecclesiology and iconography yeah, well, this is the
Speaker 9: ecclesiology and iconography of the first millennium is what you
Speaker 9: see in the Seventh Ecumenical Council. So actually, if you
Speaker 9: read the Sonoticon of Orthodoxy, it's a great refutation of
Speaker 9: seeing how the Roman Catholic Church canonically departed from what
Speaker 9: we have in the Seventh Synod. And again, somebody should
Speaker 9: find out if Uniates affirm the Sonoticon, because that would
Speaker 9: be another great argument if I can find this out.
Speaker 9: If Uniates do affirm the Sonoticon of Orthodoxy from the
Speaker 9: Seventh Synod, then yeah, that's just one of many, many
Speaker 9: Roman Catholic contradictions. But yes, I do think occult Renaissance
Speaker 9: stretch of Rome showed me a lot of things that
Speaker 9: I missed about the Renaissance. So it's a really good
Speaker 9: analysis of the second millennium. His severe lack, of course,
Speaker 9: is not knowing about the first millennium, as is unfortunately
Speaker 9: the case with many Roman Catholics. So he says blessed Lin,
Speaker 9: and he is citing the book saying Rome defected in
Speaker 9: the thirteenth century. Yeah. I mean, you could have different
Speaker 9: arguments as to exactly where to pinpoint the date, because
Speaker 9: it's more of a long flowering of a movement all
Speaker 9: the way back to the time of Augustine. Again, I'm
Speaker 9: really I'm tired of debating this issue. So read the
Speaker 9: Bradshaw book. The chapter on Augustine is really good. It
Speaker 9: just really solidifies it in a just a really clear
Speaker 9: way in a brief chapter. So we shouldn't have to
Speaker 9: keep debating these topics. It's pretty easy to understand if
Speaker 9: you read these works. But so there's a development. It's
Speaker 9: not necessarily we're not saying Gustin is evil. He made
Speaker 9: some mistakes, as did Saint Gregor Nissa other people. Saint
Speaker 9: Maximus correct mistakes and errors that sing Gregor Nissa made,
Speaker 9: So there's nothing wrong with us. We don't follow one dude.
Speaker 9: We follow the consensum, consensus, patrum right consensus of the fathers.
Speaker 9: So I would say, go easy, don't rush into these topics,
Speaker 9: take your time, it'll become evident. And yes, there is
Speaker 9: a good historical critique of the Renaissance in that book.
Speaker 9: Franklin Chan nineteen ninety nine. Thank you for all your work, Jay,
Speaker 9: and thank you for your great guest.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 9: Yes, David has done a tremendous amount of work he
Speaker 9: has learned at a lightning speed the last year on
Speaker 9: these topics. So definitely subscribe to David's channel down there
Speaker 9: and you will get some based solid Christology there and
Speaker 9: hopefully we can have I think David wants to. Is
Speaker 9: trying to get a debate going?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 9: Are you trying to get a debate with somebody?
Speaker 1: Yes, I just got a debate. If it's a person
Speaker 1: on Twitter seven Zella's will be debating on Bright Saturday,
Speaker 1: on Bright's Week. I decided to debate him because he
Speaker 1: represents the position very well and I think he knows
Speaker 1: his stuff, unlike many of the people in my part
Speaker 1: two I said, I declared a debate to Farrington, but
Speaker 1: on Facebook he said stupid stuff like, oh, I studied
Speaker 1: this stuff for thirty years and we believe in the
Speaker 1: same thing. So I'm not taking seriously if he's going
Speaker 1: to say stuff like that. But yeah, I'll have a
Speaker 1: debate in two months about this exact issue, so tune
Speaker 1: in for that. It's going to be great, all right.
Speaker 9: EML says for ten dollars, Thank you, by the way,
Speaker 9: Franklin for that. I'm much appreciated. mL says for ten dollars.
Speaker 9: In the disputation with Puis, I think it's paragraph four
Speaker 9: Maximus claims that the distinctions in Christ are effectively virtual.
Speaker 9: I don't have book in front of me, but I've
Speaker 9: struggled with that. Well, this is just similar to the
Speaker 9: notion that that we've talked about in the past, with
Speaker 9: Saint Cyril saying the same thing. He's just echoing. And
Speaker 9: this is a response to people who think that because
Speaker 9: you make a distinction, that therefore it's a division. So again,
Speaker 9: remember the dictum that making distinctions does not entail composition
Speaker 9: or division. Sometimes a distinction might entail composition. For example,
Speaker 9: we make a distinction between body and soul and humans.
Speaker 9: In humans, body and soul is composite. Right, It is
Speaker 9: a composite thing because it's a creation that is brought
Speaker 9: together when God creates us. Right, we have a body,
Speaker 9: we have a soul, and so in humans, though in
Speaker 9: the way that we actually are, it's uniteed. Right, the
Speaker 9: body suffuses the soul, the soul suffuses the body. In
Speaker 9: the argumentation of many of the Church fathers. So when
Speaker 9: we talk about making a distinction, right, and we say
Speaker 9: that it's a virtual distinction, that doesn't mean that the
Speaker 9: distinction isn't also real. It's in the context of in
Speaker 9: theology making the distinction, right. Saint John Damascus makes the
Speaker 9: same argument in the Exposition of Orthodox Faith, where he
Speaker 9: says that just because we make a virtual distinction does
Speaker 9: not mean that we make a division. It also doesn't
Speaker 9: mean that there isn't a real distinction. Right, So you
Speaker 9: can say both that there's a virtual distinction and a
Speaker 9: real distinction.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Can I add something on that show.
Speaker 9: I'm gonna pull up the paragraph that he that he's mentioning,
Speaker 9: but go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. This is relevant with Saint Curle when he's
Speaker 1: talking about like the two nature into Nature's formula being acceptable.
Speaker 1: So for Saint Kurle, for example, if you make a
Speaker 1: distinction in concrete, it leads to Nestorianism because you're making
Speaker 1: a concrete distinction and you're separating them, right, And so
Speaker 1: he says that we make this distinction in according to
Speaker 1: the eyes of the soul. Now, this doesn't mean a
Speaker 1: mere conceptual distinction inside our heads. This is still based
Speaker 1: on reality, but it is the wavy understanding distinction is
Speaker 1: what is highlighted here, and this is exactly what the
Speaker 1: Kalcadonian definition. Boy, it does when they say that Christ
Speaker 1: is into natures, it says according to the intellect, which
Speaker 1: is exactly what Saint Chrios is in his second letter
Speaker 1: to Seqensis. So again, this claimed that Kalkadon believes in
Speaker 1: this story in theology is patently false. It's absolutely yeah.
Speaker 9: I mean, if you couldn't make distinctions after the incarnation,
Speaker 9: which is what some of them argue, then you couldn't
Speaker 9: have John Damascus having a whole chapter explaining what happens
Speaker 9: in the descent of Christ into Hades, because he makes
Speaker 9: all of these very precise distinctions about how the human
Speaker 9: soul was severed from the human body and descended into Hades. Right,
Speaker 9: Does that mean that he's dividing Christ? Of course not.
Speaker 9: Is it a virtual distinction yes? Is it also a
Speaker 9: real distinction, yes, So we don't have to set up
Speaker 9: either oars as if there's only one or the others.
Speaker 9: So I'll read one eighty four. Different actions have different effects,
Speaker 9: not on one effect, as was demonstrated by the example
Speaker 9: the sword being hardened by fire. If the operation of
Speaker 9: the sword and that fire are mutually united. And yet
Speaker 9: we observe that the fire's effect is burning the iron,
Speaker 9: and the irons effect is cutting, even though they are
Speaker 9: not distinguished in the burning cut or in the cutting burn,
Speaker 9: just as the effect of heaven or earth. Then it
Speaker 9: is not possible to say that there is one work
Speaker 9: unless there is only one action. If thou has maintained
Speaker 9: that the effect of one energy is several distinction distinct
Speaker 9: works by Christ, then thou must maintain one action. Or
Speaker 9: if thout is teach an innumerable number of actions, then
Speaker 9: thou must also teach that the energies are innumerable. But
Speaker 9: our inquiry is not about the works, whether we're discussing
Speaker 9: things external to Christ, but about things within Christ himself.
Speaker 9: That is to say, about the natural principles of the
Speaker 9: essences of Christ, whether he remained defective from the union
Speaker 9: or not. If he was defective, then it is possible
Speaker 9: for a nature that is defective in a natural energy
Speaker 9: to genuinely exist. If it is not defective, then the
Speaker 9: energy is either understood to be a component or a
Speaker 9: principle of the essence, or it is acquired from those
Speaker 9: things external to him. If the energy is proper to
Speaker 9: nature and it's not acquired from external sources, then it
Speaker 9: is possible for nature to exist, then as possible either
Speaker 9: for a nature that exists without actions or the converse
Speaker 9: to be true. Nature can neither be conceived nor can
Speaker 9: exist without energies proper to it. To believe this is
Speaker 9: to believe that He operates in each nature naturally, and
Speaker 9: that there are not natures that are altered thereby. So
Speaker 9: I don't see unless it's in a footnote, it's not
Speaker 9: one eighty four. But again just because don't think in
Speaker 9: either ors. Just because he says there's a dis like
Speaker 9: we would say that there's a nature person distinction in God. Right,
Speaker 9: Does that mean we're dividing God because we make a
Speaker 9: distinction between nature and person? No, And so after the incarnation,
Speaker 9: can we still make conceptual distinctions about Christ? Absolutely? Does
Speaker 9: the fact that there's conceptual distinctions mean that he's blended
Speaker 9: in a monofsite sense and that there aren't two nature? Still? No,
Speaker 9: because the union is hypostatic, it's hyposthetized. So hopefully that's helpful.
Speaker 9: Let's see. But if you want to put in the chat,
Speaker 9: because it's not one eighty four, if you want to
Speaker 9: pick out the specific paragraph that you that you think
Speaker 9: it might be in where you're talking about. I can
Speaker 9: read that paragraph telegram five bucks. Can you set your
Speaker 9: telegram to public? It's on private, nobody can find it,
Speaker 9: including potential people interested in orthodoxy. Yeah, I'll have to
Speaker 9: do that. I didn't realize it was private, So I'll
Speaker 9: look in there and figure out how.
Speaker 5: To do that.
Speaker 9: All right, So those are the super chats. I don't
Speaker 9: see if we got any more. We didn't have surprised
Speaker 9: we didn't have orientals in here, like making arguments and claims.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I kind of expected then. But maybe they'll do
Speaker 1: it on Facebook.
Speaker 9: Yeah, people nobody wants people. Yeah, people won't directly debate
Speaker 9: or interact everything. Everything that has to do everything in
Speaker 9: some sort of like passive aggressive shooting from the you know,
Speaker 9: behind the screen. Like they won't just ever have a
Speaker 9: full on discussion or debate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot of people offerate. That's why I decided
Speaker 1: to do the debate, because I said, you know, this
Speaker 1: is the only guy that does it, so I might
Speaker 1: as well give him a chance and we'll I'll have
Speaker 1: a debate about this topic in two months. Hopefully I'll
Speaker 1: get a better performance. I'll give it the best performance
Speaker 1: I can give during a debate. It's been a while
Speaker 1: since I did that, but shamelessly plugging myself in here again.
Speaker 1: If you like this stuff, if you want to see
Speaker 1: more of it, you can always follow my channel. You
Speaker 1: can again, if you're interested about Kolkada but you're not
Speaker 1: really interested about diaphysicism in the Church Fathers, you can.
Speaker 1: You don't have to watch the videos in a chronological order.
Speaker 1: You can watch it anytime in any like. If you
Speaker 1: want to watch part three first and then part two
Speaker 1: and then part one, that's fine. That's fine. So yeah,
Speaker 1: that's all I have to say. I think awesome.
Speaker 9: All right, thank you guys. We'll have another stream tonight.
Speaker 9: Our friend Mark Hackard is coming back. We haven't talked
Speaker 9: to Mark in a long time, and he's put out
Speaker 9: some pretty bomb articles lately. One of them is out
Speaker 9: on the Jeff stein Efry stuff. So we're gonna be
Speaker 9: discussing that tonight, Espionage geopolitics with the expert Russia analyst
Speaker 9: Mark Hackard, geopolitical commentator analysts. You've seen him on art
Speaker 9: and other sites Sold the East and Mark is also
Speaker 9: putting out a new article as well on the controversial
Speaker 9: issue of Uribezmanov. How do we understand and take the
Speaker 9: off sided. Uri Bezumanov talks, Well, we're gonna be looking
Speaker 9: at that, We're gonna be looking at defectors, espionage, geopolitics
Speaker 9: tonight when Mark Hackard joins me to discuss those topics.
Speaker 9: And but you know, we're just crazy conspiracy theorists here.
Speaker 9: We don't actually interview experts, people with graduate degrees in
Speaker 9: these topics. You know, I didn't just write my master's thesis,
Speaker 9: most of it on this topic. No, we're all just
Speaker 9: crazy conspiracy theorists. We don't actually know what we're talking about.
Speaker 9: There's no such thing as conspiracy. There's no espionage, there's
Speaker 9: no I think none of this actually relates to the
Speaker 9: Orthodox world, even though now everybody knows it in relationship
Speaker 9: to the Ukraine. In that situation, it's all fake, it's
Speaker 9: not real, it doesn't exist, and we're just crazy conspiracy theorists, crazies. Well,
Speaker 9: we're gonna get crazy tonight with Mark Hackard, So join
Speaker 9: me tonight. I think about let's see eight or nine
Speaker 9: Central somewhere in there. I'll have the show page up
Speaker 9: here in a little bit. But thank you David, much
Speaker 9: appreciate it. Thank you Jay all right, Everybody, have a
Speaker 9: good night.