Destroying Christianity: Ecumenism, and Catholic Reform with Jay Dyer ‪

Roman Catholic Church or anything like that. I opposed the system and particularly you know, the head of that system and how he is steering that that entity. And so really it does come from a position of concern and love and care for Roman Catholics. We want them to be united with us, but we can't have a false union. And so the only path to real union and restoration I think has to come through truth. Right, you can't have unity without truth, and you can't have truth without unity.

They kind of go together, so they're not either ores. And you know that, as you said, we do share commonality the first thousand years of the church, roughly speaking, where certainly we would acknowledge many holy popes of Rome,

many saints that are popes of Rome. You know, Saint Leo, the great defender of the you know, to natures in Christ with his tone at Chalcedon, and of course many other saints of Rome, so there's nothing inherently wrong with apostolic succession or the Apostolic See of Rome or anything

like that. But obviously, as everybody knows, I think in this audience, the divergence comes after about a first you know, forst thousand years, and there's already seeds of the split between the East and the West prior to you know, ten fifty four, but the beginning of the split is really in the late eight hundreds nine hundreds, and then it kind of comes to full fruition in my view, in twelve seventy four the Council of Lions and then

successively later at the Council of Florence, because after the Council of Lions in twelve twenty four in the West you have the full on acceptance of the Phillyoaquay in the sense of a double hypostatic procession, and then you get the response of the Orthodox, which are the Palomite Synods, to explicitly reject that. And those have been received universally throughout the whole world of Orthodoxy. They're part of the Lenton Liturgy we affirmed, and the teaching and affirmation of

the Palomite Synods and Saint Gregory Palomas. So we know that we can't accept the philly Oquid doctrine given the fact that the Palomite Synods reject it, and they reject it very clearly, say Grey Palmas has a whole work that Father heres has recently translated into English English called the Apedictic Treatise on the Holy Spirit, which really quells gets rid of any notions of there being a reconciliation in the sense of, oh, it was just a dispute

over words, and we all mean the same thing. No, we don't, I mean. And Saint Gregor Palm has been a very clear in the Apdictive Treatise on the Holy Spirit that the Latin Church is following Satan. There they're Satanic, and he was saying that all the way back then. And he also said similar things to Barleum in the Triads and in the debate with the barleym might I can dinos that if you follow this course, you will

lead your church and your group into atheism. And that's precisely what we've seen the West do ideologically, is go down the course of the track of atheism. So long story short, you know, there's nothing we're not saying everything that you believe is false or that you're evil because you're Roman Catholic, that the system is wrong, and that's what you know, I really like to get into and focus on is the systematics and how the systems don't work.

And when you have bad systems, what happens is that they produce bad results, and they can produce civilizationally catastrophic results. And that's what's happened in the West.

for beginning there. Now, privately we kind of went back and forth and you shared with me a news clip about Pope Francis's new alliance with the Islamic world and this in this new what Abrahamic religious center, and it seems like with what's going on post Koufid is a new one world religion, and in fact they're openly wanting

to build structures promoting this concept. I would love for you because I feel like this is really a central point when we look at the evils of the Vatican, because we're going to go through a lot of them, but the new one World religion hints at a lot of the preference for unity over multiplicity, ecumenicism, globalism, alliance with what it seems to be the sort of technological one world government that the Pope Francis seems totally in

step with. And so can you dive into the Vatican the Pope, how long has this process actually been moving in this this attempt for the Vatican and to really be the sort of figurehead. It seems like it seems like the Pope the new religious leader of the new one world religion.

That's really all that's needed to be under the status of dogmatic declaration for a Roman Catholic. And in fact, I have a whole video where I go through four separate documents from the papacy actually affirming and making it very clear that Vatican two is dogmatic. You do have to accept. There's not an optional council for Roman Catholic and there's there's at least four places in other Roman Catholic dogmatic papal statements that affirm that. So we get if we get that out of the way, then we

can come to documents like Atata. I don't know if you're familiar with this, but this is one of the more famous Vatican two documents, and it's the October twenty eighth, nineteen sixty five document. It's about five pages, six pages. It's not that long. Are you familiar with this?

sent you a link there. There's another there's another proposed version of this over in Germany. Somebody is saying too that there's a there's proposed versions of this over in the United Arab Emirates. And the idea is that, well, we're going to just get together under a common banner, not of the accidents, but the essentials. Right, So this applying the Resitilian distinction of essence and accidents to this idea that well, don't we all believe in one God?

And if we all believe in one God, that we're all on the same page, at least as far as that goes. And then we can just consider the other stuff like Jesus and Trinity and resurrec virgin birth. Maybe those are all just kind of like add ons, and they're not the essentials. And this lowest common denominator fallacy just keeps getting whittled down right to where ironically, at Vatican two and Nostra Tat it says, I'm going to

read it. It says, throughout the long history to the present day, there's found amongst different peoples a certain awareness of some hidden power which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human life. At times there is present even a recognition of a supreme being, perhaps a father. This awareness and recognition results in a way of life that is imbued with a deep religious sense.

The religions that are found in more advanced civilizations endeavor by a way by way of well defined concepts and exact language to answer these questions. Thus Hinduism Hinduism. In Hinduism, people explore the divine mystery and express it in limitless niches ahime me riches of myth, and the accurately defined

insights of philosophy. They seek release from the trials of the present day and the ascetical practices profound meditation, and they have recourse to God capital G in confidence and love. So they're literally said, is literally saying that G, the God of Hinduism, is the God that we all worship. Because they're believing in a god, there's some supreme God,

a supreme being. And so the iron here is that so this is equivalent to me equating as long as I say it's a supreme being, which in linguistic philosophy we call that a non rigid designator. There's a paper that Father Diacon and I covered by a doctor Garibee, which is actually critiquing this notion of generic theism, or the idea that just because all the monotheistic religions affirm

a God, that they're affirming the same God. Well, that's actually a fallacy, and it's it's known as the quantification shift fallacy. And the reason it's a fallacy is because it should be obvious that because we're all affirming one, it doesn't equate to the fact that it's the identical one that we're all affirming. Right, I mean, I could say there's one God. Another guy down the road could say, oh, there is one God. I agree with you, but he

means Satan, right, I'm certain. Maybe maybe he attends that the the temple of set Church or or the sat what's the new thing that's they've got the abortion ritual that they're talking about. The Oh is it the church Satanic Satanic Temple? Yeah, the Satanic Temple, that's it. Yeah. Maybe he believes that it's Lucifer, that's the one God. But does it follow from the fact that we all believe in one God that it's the same God. No, No,

And that's what's known as the quantifier shift fallacy. Other examples of this and logic would be situations where we say something like every woman, uh, every girl loves a boy, therefore every girl loves the same boy. Right, Right, everyone is born of a woman, therefore everyone is born of the same woman. Right. They're obvious fallacies. All of these religions believe in one God, therefore they believe in the

same God. Now, when we come to, you know, something like the New Testament, what's perhaps an example of a religion that's very close to you know, some of the things that we we would affirm. Maybe they even have a lot of the books shared with us. Let's say Judaism. Judaism affirms that Father. Does Jesus say that just affirming the Father is enough? No? No, he says that no one comes to the Father but through me. Because the

word father. If God's eternally a father, according to Saint Anthonatius, he's eternally the father of an eternal son. So the word father necessitates and implies the son. So I'm no more joined with that religion than I am with an Arian or Joba's witness right, I mean, Jee's witnesses said there's one God, So are we all on the same team? Well, the same Basil didn't think so. I mean, he wrote gigantic treatises and like spent his whole life combating the

idea that we're all of the same faith. Right, And in fact, if you look at the Niceno constant Apology Creed, it designates the One God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that implies, by necessary implication, the Son and the Spirit. As the Cappadocians famously said, I can no longer think of the One being the essence of God or the person of the Father, as I am quickly bound over to think of the three, and I can no longer think of the three without quickly

being referred back to the one. So there's an equal ultimacy of the one and the many in the trinity. So there's no such thing as kind of picking out because of there being commonalities that there's therefore one lowest

common denominator religion. And if you read the Garibie paper, he points out that if there's a lowest common denominator religion that is just the commonalities in these various so called monotheistic faiths or Abrahamic faiths, then that's actually a third other religion, right, that's not the other three you see,

And that's all you can. You can prove that logically by a conjunct where you put, for example, in parentheses and logic you could say, we're gonna list, let's say, the beliefs of Orthodox Christianity that make Orthodoxy Orthodoxy, right, so that would be A would be the Trinity, B, Virgin Birth, C, you know, incarnation, D, Resurrection. Right, Let's say all of the beliefs that are necessary components of

Orthodox Christianity. They're in these parentheses A, A, B, C, D Z. Right, if we take out Oh but wait a minute, one of those beliefs is that God's on mission, so maybe that's you know, G. Well, Jews and Muscles believe that God's on thisce, so they believe G. Right. But is G the same as the set that's up here in the parentheses. No, no, it's not. And even if I take elements out commonalities, it's not this set because this set is everything in totality. It's a total set.

It's in the parentheses. And this is just logic showing that there's no such thing as a core religion that is the core of these three monotheistic abrahemit face. It's it's a simple it's a simple way in logic, in linguistic philosophy to show that this set is not this set merely because there's common things. Another point, too, is that he makes in the Garby paper and makes some

really great examples or analogies to a card games. If I'm playing poker and then I'm playing, you know, crazy eights, does the fact that Poker and Crazy Eights use cards mean they're playing a same game the same game? No? Does the fact that there's cards and rules involved, mean that there's actually a common core game that's neither poker nor Crazy Eights. No, of course not, it's this nonsense, right. So in other words, the set of beliefs is going

to determine the reference in the set. And that's why it's a holistic it's a whole systemic thing. And so the word God is in linguistic philosophy, it's known as a non rigid designator. And what we mean by that is that it's not a a personal pronoun. It doesn't pick out anything specific. Even in scripture, the word God just little case God. It could refer to the person of the Father. It could refer to the whole Trinity. It could refer to divine actions or attributes with the

divine essence. It can refer to angels. Angels are called gods, Elohim, sons of God. It could refer to humans. I will make you as a god to Pharaoh, right, God says to Moses. And it could refer to us in deification. It could refer to demons, right, the gods of the nations. So the point here is that it's abatance witch the fact that the other religions use the word God or the word monotheism, or the word you know, whatever that's in common. We believe in an omniscient God. You believe

in omnient God. So it's the same God. No, it's not, because the rest of the set of beliefs about our God is just as necessary as any single member of the set right. The Father is just as necessary as Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit is just as necessary as son, as as omniscience. You can't start just subtracting from them. And there's no argument to be made for some of God's attributes being more self evident than the others. They

all go together. It's holistic. You don't like, learn the essence of God and then down the road like Tomism says, we'll tack on trinity, we'll tack on virgin birth. No, it all goes together, right, it's a set right.

We can point back to the Iberian Peninsula in Spain with the Moorish occupation, where they allowed for all these mystical traditions to study each other and even smoke hashiesh coming out of Northern Africa. And then right after that we start looking at the fifteenth century, the fourteen hundreds.

We get the Italian Renaissance, we get the translation of the Hermetic Corpus, we get Marcillo, Ficino, Giovanni, Picadella, Marindola, and we see magic, Chaldean oracles, Sufism, Kabbala, and Christian mysticism all come together in this sort of new understanding

of what man is, of what religion is. And this is where the perennialism itself, if you're going to trace that idea really gets going, is the thirteenth century Spain, and Catholicism has really been associated with this concept ever since.

that comes out of philosophical schools. So it's kind of a neoplatonic approach, and it's an approach as you said that it gets adopted eventually by the perennial schools, which are really just borrowing from Neoplatonism to try to find the grand ultimate skeletal backbone of what the world religions are,

which are just kind of masks. So the perennialist idea, which again is not new, it was already had and seed form by Neoplatonists, and then it's regurgitated by the neo platonic schools that really influence the people in the Italian Renaissance. It's just regurgitating things that had already been rejected in the first seven count So actually, if you read, for example, Myandor's book Business Ideology, there's a whole chapter

on the rejection of Neoplatonism. And this is why you get, for example, the visiting Emperor Saint Justinian is the one who started closing down the Platonic Academy and these schools, because what happens is in the sonoticicon there's an explicit rejection of Platonism, Neoplatonism in this end, this idea which manifests in the chapter that he wrote called the It's about the humanists, the monastics and humanists, and so this

eventually manifests is a warfare between neoplatonism. And this even gets into iconography because the iconoclass are actually rejecting iconography on neoplatonic grounds. They all have neoplatonic arguments. This comes up in St. Theodore the STUDEI. It's repeated in the Alspinsky Treatise with Theology the icon in the chapter on Gregory Palomos, because palam is them is what undergirds the affirmation of iconography. The energy's doctrine is crucial and fundamental

to why we do iconography. It's the apologetic argument that they use. At the Seven Council. St. Theodore and Sat. John Damascus talk about the energies being the reason why iconography is useful, correct, important, pedagogical, and also mystical. I mean, this is why the Saints have a golden halo. It's because that's signifying the uncreated light. Icons themselves are teaching

the essence energy doctrine. And so when we get to the Renaissance period, there's a rejection of that idea of icons and iconography having a specific liturgical setting and meaning and significance, and there's rubrics for how you do it. You don't do Chinese Jesus because Jesus wasn't Chinese. But we specifically see at the time of Charlemagne and after that's when the Western Church departs right in many ways

from the liturgical norms and from the Seventh Council. The Romancalloy Church never has really accepted the actual teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. They afferm it in principle, but for them, oh, that just means we can do Jesus art right, and you can do anything, so you can have God the Father as an old man. No, actually, the Seventh machemenical council says you cannot paint God the Father as an old man, and it says that's a

heretical and idolatrous notion. No man has seen the Father at any time, Jesus says, and never will because the only icon of the Father is the person of the Son. The hypostasis of the son is the only icon of the Father. And so there can be symbolic representations of the Father in the sense of the three angels in the you know the famous a Braamic Rublev icon. There's

a symbols that represent the Trinity. But we make it very clear if you read the later icon councils in Moscow, they they explicitly know that those icons are not portraying the person of the Father, right any more than the number three is like portraying the person of the Father. It's represents a symbolic it's what's called the idos of the icon, but it's not the hypostasis of the Father.

And that's made very clear for a reason. Anyway, long story short is just that iconography Orthodox theology is very clear, very precise on these topics, and it is always stressed that as the nice in Crete says, the one God is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit principally right, when we begin our trinitary theology, it's the person of the Father. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, right, And then yes, I also affirm God from God like from Light, the Son, and the Spirit. Right. So one

God can pick out different things. It can mean the person, the Father, it can mean the entire triad, It can mean the divine essence that they share. It can even pick out the attributes or energies that God has, because God is fully present in every energy. Sure, but the point is just that if we understood even just iconography itself. Right, And this is another point I'm gonna it's gonna come up, I'm sure in the debate in a few days with Trent,

because we'll be debating this very topic. Is that you know, God for us has a specific reference and it means trinity. Right. It's it's the persons of the Trinity. There's no such thing as generic theism. Just even by linguistic philosophy, God is a non rigid designator doesn't tell you. So you're absolutely right that it's a kind of abate and switch.

I don't know how self conscious the authors of the Vatican Two documents actually were, because some of this is really dumb and it's really low level argumentation, Like because they pray and because they you know, seek out things in their idolatriust religion, that therefore it's the same god as us. I mean, that's just not just non sequitors, that it's that it's our God.

yours on your channel. But Orthodoxy doesn't have this dialectical tension between multiplicity and unity, and therefore you actually find a balance, You actually find a harmony at an intellectual and an intellectrical intellectual, you know, theological level. There's a balance there. Do you think that this has any ties back to absolute divine simplicity.

about here. I don't I don't affirm everything that that this author writes, but this book is really good, and it's called Church Papacy Schism by Philip Chrard, And really the whole thesis of this book is that the imbalance and the one the many is kind of what undergirds the Roman Catholic system. So papalism itself never could have really arisen if the pope didn't kind of arrogate himself to the office and roll of what the Holy Spirit does.

So it's not accidental that the rise of the papal monarchy in the early Middle Ages is at the same time as a direct correlation, direct provable connection between that and the imbalance that occurs in the philioquy doctrine. The philioquy doctrine creates a diad And again I would just say read Saint Photius's mystigogy, because he says improves in about eighty pages that if you give the power in particular property of the person the father to the son,

now you have a father son. Now you have a diad right, and that diad of father's son, which produces the third person, the father son. There that diad actually has a power of producing a person that the spirit lacks. So now, in this silly effort to try to prove the deity of the Christ against arianism, which is kind of the motivations of why the Philioque was rolled out to begin with, which is all kind of a mistake and a misunderstanding anyway, it really has the opposite effect

of subordinating the spirit. So if the Holy Spirit is subordinated in the life of this institution, which is precisely what all of our saints and theologians said that the philioak we would do again, just read the mystagogy of Saint Photius. He said it would do that. And then what happens is that now we need a humanistic role for the Holy Spirit embodied in the person of the pope. Now the Pope is the voice of the Holy Spirit.

The voice of God on Earth is no longer the immediate, innate, direct presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. It's now an extra juridical office that speaks in this way. And so the pope really becomes the bridge of the Philly okay now or the Holy Spirit comes into the church, he kind of replaces Christ in

the economia. And that's the argumentation that that Charard makes, which I've always thought was a really really powerful argument, and it's and he makes the argument that it's on the basis of absolute divine simplicity that this even happened. I mean, Photius himself even says this that the simplicity doctrine that the Cappadocians and the Church adopted is not the simplicity doctrine that the West adopted. And so they

even noticed that at the time. That's what undergirds the whole debate of the Phillyoquay, at the time of Photius and at the time of the Council Alliance, and when you read the Tomos of the Palomite Synods and the Palmite theology of that time, and the oppredicted treat use of Saint Gregory against the Latins. It's all saying what

I'm saying. It's none of this stuff is like me making it so, it's just in these documents, very clear, very lucid logical presentation, by the way, which should show people that there's nothing antithetical to palamism and apologetics and logic. I mean, he's using Ariscotan logic. That's what the apedictic treatise means, right,