Flashback! Orthodox Vs Oriental Theology Explained - David Erhan + Jay Dyer

of hypostasis in nature is part of the confusion. How there's a development, you could say, in the understanding of those terms. We're not saying there's a development in doctrine, but there is a development in which terms will become precise in our theology over time. And David has done a lot of research into the actual writings of those

in the opposing camps. And now this is relevant because there's a lot of a false acumenism in our day which assumes that, oh, well, all these positions are actually just the same. We're also in the same stuff, so

there's no reason to fight anymore. And anybody who debates or fights over these issues is unloving and mean and has spiritual problems, which would mean that everybody at Chalcedon was unloving and mean and had spiritual problems, because of course they were debating these issues, and then for the next two hundred years, in the next two councils, it's actually the issues of Christology that get hashed out and debated,

particularly the topics will be discussing today. We're going to cover a lot of those formative central texts and David has done what three part series. I think I made it through at least half or.

of Antioch, Philuxinus of Madbug, and other Oriental characters. And again, the reason why I even started doing this is it didn't sit right with me when I heard so many people say, oh, you know, for for sixteenth centuries, for like all this time we were actually believing in the believing in the same exact belief, but we just had terminological problems. And I saw a lot of different argumentations from copts, which made me say, Okay, I'm going to

look into this. I'm going to research and see what both sides say, and the theology is really not the same. And when I made the video series, which by the way, if you want to watch like you can watch in any order, like if you want to start with part three, if you want to start with geophysicism in the photos, that's fine. You don't have to like watch it chronologically. When I started to upload the videos, one interesting thing that happened is that various different coptic priests have said

that I don't really understand these issues. They said this on face, I don't really understand these issues, but none of them really explained how I don't understand these issues. And one of them, at least when they were pressed, they start to explain a little bit, but they showed that they didn't. They had no idea what they were talking about. So it really just seemed like, oh, he doesn't has no idea. He thinks we're different, but we're not. And just and this was back then, I only uploaded

like the introductory parts. So we're going to be talking about.

actually talk about this. Farrington Peter Finks and he says that he studied this for thirty years, and he says that we're not different, but we don't accept Alkadon because they don't say the magic words exactly. So the stuff that we're going to be talking about is going to be dealing with the history. We're going to be going back to even fourteeny eight. I'm planning on giving like a short summary of what happened, because this is all going to be very relevant for people to understand what's

going on. As we probably all know, they have a character calledness Stories In four twenty eight it becomes Patriarch of Constantinople. He says, stupid stuff like Mary is not the Mother of God and all that stuff. Saint Curle starts reading The Fathers, and one interesting thing to note while he's reading the Fathers is that he comes across and this is important to note because this explains why the term mea physics even came into play. Now, of course, if you watch the first part, we say that we

don't do the word concept fallacy. The concept behind those words is what matters. So Saint Curle reads certain atonation letters when in reality they were written by a pollinarius. And there are various different people that make note of this. Timothy in his Ecclesiastical History, who's an Apollinarian disciple, says that the term mea physicis was made by a pollinarius in order to combat the innovation and heresies of the Cappadocian fathers and of Saint Antonatius and all these different

people who in their eyes are preaching two natures. So I think this is kind of important to note. But he came across this term when he was researching about the Fathers, and he thought it was generally from Saint Antinasius. Now today we know that it's not from Saint Antonatius. It's a pollinarian forgeries, but it's important to note because this is really how the term comes to play. Then first council of emphasis happens. There's an historic council that's

a split between Antwerk and Alexandri. This is very important because two years later, in four twenty three, there's a formula of reunion. There's a there's a reunion between Alexander

and Antioch, two patriarchates that have different christologies. And one interesting thing and this is in letter turned nine and Saint Carrol that's going to be very relevant when we're talking about Pope Saint Leo is that he says that we know the theologians make some things of the evangelical and epostolic teaching about the Lord commonists pertaining to the one person and other things they divide as the two natures and attribute the word he wants to God on

account of the divinity of Christ and the lovely ones on account of his humanity. So this is very relevant because Pope Saint Louis is the exact same thing in his tomb, but this is not acceptable for him, and we're going to get into how they defend this from Saint Carol, and then Saint Kurle argues against After the reunion, he argues against Theodore of Mopsuestia and the fifth secure Medical Council, will we condemn him as a heretic and

he writes on the unity of Christ. He reposes, and then other stuff happens, so that there's a council in four forty eight under the presidency of Saint Flavian, he deposed Utichius, and then a year later Dioscurus says, oh, no, I have to save him because he doesn't teach. Oh he was rejected out of a because of Astorianizing patriarchs Ephesis. The second council happens. Saint Flavian, EBAs Theodore Dominus two

of Antioch are all deposed. A year lady Saint louis excommunicated, so Dioscurus in one fell swoop just this excommunicating gets rid of three major patriarchs and other patriarchs as well. And so this is a big deal, right, This is a huge issue that's going on, and this context is important when we're talking about the Council of Kalkadon. And in four fifty one, the Council of Kalkadon happens and begins. And on the topic, by the way, j on the

topic of all we believe in the same thing. If you look at the Troparia, if you look at the Tropario of Severus from the Coptic liturgy. What's really funny is that they refer to us as heretics. They refer to Calkeedonias as heretics. But now today, sixteenth centuries later, suddenly we believe the same thing, even though in their liturgy they refer to Calcadonius as heretics. As you think, this is like absolutely silly. We believe in the same thing,

but apparently we are heretics. How how exactly? But so what are the oriental problem in the Council of Caltada. And if you watch the part two of my video series you will I deal with that with I deal with that argument extensively. So on one problem they have is that all you you first said that Christ is out of two natures, and then you insert into nature's right. And that's one of the arguments they use to say that there's a direction going to the way of news

stories because he said the same thing. So this is an example of word concept fallacy. In here Nestorius used into natures. Therefore we cannot say into natures. And as a matter of fact, Severus I believe Saint Justinian uh cited Severus in saying this. Saint Justinian says that he makes he makes a point that Severus argues that all you know, when when the Father spoke of two natures, that was fine, but then came Nestorius, and now it's not fine. So Necessarius kind of poisoned the term in

there eyes. And this is a great example of just the word consp fallacy, genetic fallacy. But the main problem with the tom of Leo, there's two problems. The one problem is that Pope Saint Leo talks about forms operating and seemingly independently in their eyes right, so he speaks of two forms of Christ, and they think that those two forms of Christ means two persons. The problem with that is because Pope Saint Leo has a vested understanding

of christology. Forms mean essence, it doesn't mean hypostasis, it doesn't mean.

you know, he asks which nature was on the cross? Well, actually, Saint Gregri Nissa again and against Eunomius says asks which form is beaten in the passion and which is glorified from eternity. So he's talking about the human form, meaning the human essence was beaten in the passion, which is exactly the same thing that Pope, Saint Leo says, So again these are arguments that Orientals use, but the responses

are fairly simple. So again I'm keeping it simple. If you want the full explanation, you can look at part two again. So about about letter thirty nine of Saint Crole Severus and Phililitis. This is text four phil Alitis. So if you have this is from the Pauline Allen

book on Severus of Antioch. Texts four Severus essentially says, in his defense of Saint Curle talking about dividing quote unquote divide in Christ's actions and attributing the divine wants the divinity, he says that he actually didn't mean it. I'm not kidding. He says, oh, he didn't mean it. He just made them anathematized their positions, and then he said, oh,

he just let them praddle on like stupid kids. And he didn't actually mean it when he said that, which is again an example of rationalization in our view, and it has really bad implications on Saint Krole's view. I mean, if Saint kil didn't really mean what he said, doesn't that mean that he's fine with nestorianizing ideas. Will't that imply that he will be fine in Kalkadon because he didn't mean what he said. Again, this has bad implications for him. Another big issue they have is that kal

Kadon accepted EBAs and Theodorit, which are two historian sympathizers. Now, in terms of theodor It, if you actually read his book Eeronistas, which was composed in four forty seven, there are numerous things that he says in Aeronistas, which is actually the things that Saint kill says. I'm not going to go over them, but you could. But again, I'll deal with those things and with Ibas. He has a bad letter about how he doesn't like Saint Kyle, but

he doesn't really speak of theology. Not to mention, his acceptance was based on a reversal of the Council of Ephesus too, so it was based on reversing the effects of the Second Ficiene Council, which kal Kadan was based on. And not to mention again, his letter where he was condemning Saint Kilt was written for thirty three, back when he was a priest, not when he was a bishop, back when Saint Kyle himself was alive and there's another example of word concept faucy Jay. They will say a

Hisstorius accepted the Kalakdonian Council. He said, oh, I believe in the same thing, which is funny. I mentioned this in the video. Arius does the same thing. It's the Council of Nicea. Ten years later, yes, he says, I accept the Council of Nicea.

concept fallacy. We deal with it constantly as well, with idiots like Jonathan Hill, who will say that because the term natural theology is used in Saint Maximus, therefore he means natural theology in the tonistic sense, which is ridiculous. And Bradshaw has entire sections refuting that notion. Again, Father Stanieloy has entire sections refuting the notion that we believe in in the tonistic version of natural theology. So again,

word concept fallas he is at the root. It's a central problem here in this debate with the Nonchalcedonians because they're married, on the one hand to the phraseology of Saint Cyril, when Saint Cyril was himself not married to one definitional sense of this terminology. This is the problem with all of these heretics and all these people who don't have any ability to understand nuance is that they

try to squish everything into a one dimensional notion. And once they do that, in their minds, they think they've got some kind of key to refuting everyone else, but it just actually makes them look ridiculous.

So we're actually not the devices, we're actually accepting the correct interpretation of both formulas. Really, the main debate is rejection of the Diophysite formula, which is by the way, patristic. And this is again as I proved Timothy the student of Apollinarias himself amidst this and another objection I've seen, and this is this is a silly objection. The word hypostatic union was not used in the Council of calcadan

Therefore Calcadonis don't believe in hypostatic union. I mean, can you really believe this?

responses from other Coptic and Oriental Christians. So one response I've heard is about unleavened bread, and I think you can explain this as well. So the Armenian Church uses unleavened bread. The response I got, Jay is that, Oh, it's merely a jurisdictional preference. It's not that big of a deal. Can you explain to me, Jay, why that's why it's not merely a jurisdictional preference, Why it's such a big deal.

So it wasn't really enough. But by the way, for the audience, I mean, these aren't arguments that are like, they won't really one hundred percent direly prough all this church is wrong. It just showcases certain problems. We'll get to the real issues really soon. And it is the circumcision in the Coptic Church. As a matter of fact, if you look at Florence Bull of the Union with the Cops, this is their motivation for seeing that those that are circumcised are damned because people in the Coptic

Church this circumcision. And as a response, the Roman Catholic Church said, oh, you know, if you do a circumcision, you're damned. Bull of the Union with Cops, No.

against Orthodox. They will team up they all the time. Yeah, so there, and they don't actually agree amongst themselves, these oriental communions, but they'll team up against Us with people who are far worse, like Roman Catholics.

to be noted. There's like, really online, there's a lot of Oriental groups and most of these are like Western converts, they're most of them are caatic humans. And all they do is they're just trying to find like inquiries. The Orthodox Church get them and just bombard them with all you know, Kalkadon, this is a historian. Here's like, here's this, this and this. Like you guys are an historian. You should come to the true Church. And they do this a lot. But that has to be noted to get

onto the real stuff. This is the this is the beautiful stuff theology. First, I would like to talk about terminology. I'm going to dive much deeper into terminology in part one. I kind of events like very basic. So one thing we have to make sure, and I will avoid seeing the word nature as much as I can unless I'm quoting someone, because for us, nature obviously means essence, right, it means essence. For them it means hypostasis, and in some cases it means essence as well, but only in

terms of Trinitarian theology. So in Severus's Letters sixty five, he says that we use the name nature sometimes generally of essence and sometimes specifically signifying the hypostasis of a man. And he goes on so generally speaking, he uses nature to mean essence in tridology, because the Cappadocians did this, but in Christology he use a different scheme, he used a different terminology, so we will be talking about that now.

Of course, hypostasis for them doesn't mean person necessarily, because there are two types of hypostasis. Itself means a conchritization of essence, and that's like the antique like Nicee language that they inherit. There's two types of hypostasis. There's non self subsistent hypostasis, which is something that a hyperstat that doesn't exist on its own. So the example of this will be the body. The body without the soul doesn't exist, right, so it needs to be in the union with the

soul in order to exist. And the soul in this example is self subsistent. It exists on its own, so when it's separated from the body, the soul still exists, right, so it's self subsistence. So these things are very important to note, and the body's soul analogy is very important in dealing with christologies. It's key to this, and there's a structural similarity for example, and the historians will essentially

say that all hypostasis are self subsistent. So that's why, like when they're speaking of two natures and two hyper states and they're trying to make a union out of two hypostasis, because they are self subsistent, it still leads to two persons theology. Right, So this is like the basis of Saint CEUs argumentation is that you can't really have a single personhood in a union of persons in

a prosopic union. For severs prosopone person will mean self subsistent hypostasis because it exists on its own, and there's a very common like so in their critological scheme, Christ is out of two hypostasis. There's a divine hypostasis, right, that's self subsistent, and there's a non self substance in human hypostasis, even though normally a composite human hypostasis is self subsistent. Because the human humanity of Christ doesn't exist

outside of the union, it's non self subsistent. So it might this might raise a common question, a very simple question. So Christ is out of two hypostasis and he's one hypostasis, and it's doesn't that mean that he changed or doesn't that mean that there's a fourth person in the trinity. Actually no, it doesn't lead to.

is that this kind of subverts triological language. So from one nature three hypostasis, it becomes one ussi and three prosopa in order to defend like the divine personhoods in the trinity. But also remember the soul is self subsistence. So this is this is something that Josephair talks about a lot in his book Got issued Out. He asked this question like three four times in his book, and he asks, what is you know is soul and hype?

Are they synonymous or are they distinct? The reason why he's asking against the soul is self subsistent and it's union with the union with the body, and the soul will presuppose will mean that the soul will mean the personhood.

So will this lead to a direction of pollinarianism is an argument that Joseph fairly is and I think if you are to defend Christ's personhood, Christ's divine personhood, then necessarily in that same system, it will also lead that that personhood is a faculty of the soul as well in that system, and that will lead to some sort of pollinarianism, not exactly, but but the same mistakes that pollinarius makes. So this will be like the basic problems

that Sever's faces in Christoche. Do you have anything to add? Or should I move on?

are in perfect conjunction with other one another. Now the Orientals they reject it into Nature's formula. For them, it is an historian formula because to say into natures, for them, nature means hypostasis. So that means, oh, you mean into hypostasis. Someone might ask, well, what if they said nature meant essence. We will get to that because that actually happens and

we will see how servers responds to that. But there's a common argument here is if Christ is out of out of two natures, out of the hypostasis, but he's not into natures. But at the same time, the natures are not mixed, and they're not confused, and they're distinct. Right, So after the Union service will speak of them being we'll speak a lot prieties. So what propriety is. It's kind of distinct from property. It's the color of prices, like eye color is a propriety of the human hypostasis.

Heights eith right, these are like natural qualities.

So the nature person distinction is crucial here. As Saint John Damascus says, all heretics result from a failure to distinguish between nature and person. All of the heresies, all the trinitarian all the Christological heresies are based on this, which is based on dialectics. And we're going to see that dialectical tension in most of these guys that we talk about, especially Severus with his dialectical usage of Aristotle.

But what I wanted to distress is just that there's an important distinction between the characteristic properties of a nature and what a hypostasis is. And this is this mistake that many many people make, including people in Orthodox circles as well, who just simply aren't studied on this or don't know the nuances of this topic. And it's very nuanced.

still two natures? And this and again if the problem here is that severis want's unity of nature, unity of hypostasis out of two hypostasis. But the problem is, again, if you're going to try to say that they're distinct even after their synthesis, even after the union, the problem is distinction implies multiplicity. It doesn't mean imply division. It doesn't. In there view it does. But in our view we will say it doesn't imply division. But it still has

to be distinct. And if it is distinct, if it is distinct, then there needs to be two natures even in that logic. And this is actually the argument the Answer to Jerusalem uses in his book against the Monophysites, where he tries to argue, well, you know, you still should be arguing for two natures, because this is the lat logical conclusion and a debates which we will get on later. But the debates that Servis has with Julian of holocarnosis is actually very much based on this question.

It's very much based on whether distinction causes multiplicity or not. There's another proof of service of Antioch, meaning of Sarahciantich believing that distinction implies division, and that is letter letter two, Letters twenty two and twenty three. I will focus on letter letter twenty three in this instance. But he says in this letter that that there is a holy Trinity that is divided and distinct in hypostasis, but it is

not divided in one essence. So what he's trying to say here is that he's really trying to protect the capitolciin theology. But because he believes distinction implies division and composition, something we talk about all the time, he has to say that the hypostasis are divided in the Trinity, and we won't say that he's willingly being tried to we don't. I don't think his intention is triteistic, but nevertheless it

may lead to triteism. It does anticipate triteism in his in his theology, if you actually understand the implications of the hyposthesis being divided. But but what I wanna, what I want to focus on again is that for him, distinction implies division. Now to get onto the debate that he had with Julian of Holycarnossus. This is very important because Julian is an Aftartodocetist. He believes that Christ's humanity was impassable along with his divinity, and he believes that

the natures had a non different difference. So in greet this withs so he says, oh, you know, the humanity, they are distinct, but at the same time they're not really.

division of natures and persons, which leads to Nestorianism. And then this is the rationale that Julian has in accusing Servers of Nestorianism ultimately, because Severus is trying to be ortholox in his system by saying that Christ is passable in his humanity. But ultimately Julian actually tries to be consistent with that system, and he says, no, actually, that is not possible, because if there's a distinction, that means division, that means there's a division that means there's a duality

in Christ. That means there are two natures in Christ. And we can't accept that.

de Gramarian. He is what we will call it Curic Calcadonian. So he's one of the first curly Caulcadonian theologians in the scene, and he defends Kalkadon and he he he. The theology that he proposes is the theology, generally speaking, that we used today. He's different from the person of John Philipponos, by the way, who's a different person. They're not. They both call John de Gramarian, But this John de Gremarian is not the same as the philosopher John Philipponos.

So this debate is very insightful because John the Gramarian has a very simple argument. His argument is essentially basically this.

that Christ is into essences, you uhoually accept Kalkadon. I mean, the argument is very simple, and this is also vindicated because we just spoke about this. Sat Leo also form meaning essence, right, so this vindicates Saint Leo as well. So Severus has two options here. He either says he either accepts the argument of John the Grammarian and he says, well, you know, if it means two essences, then I guess you guys are right. I guess you guys are really

not that different from us. Or he can reject it. And as a matter of fact, what he does is he precisely does that. He precisely rejects into Nature's to mean into essences. And so this will go to everyone who thinks that Orientals have the same theology with us. Severus had the possibility to speak of into essences in Christ, so basically have vv of the into nature's formula. And he explicitly rejects this. This is in the third letter in Against the Grammarian. You can find this also in

the Paulin Allen book on Serrus of Antioch. I believe this was text. I believe this was text eight, but don't quote me on that. I'm not one hundred percent to certain. But there's arguments. Okay, does he come to the conclusion that into nature's means to a heretical conclusion. Well, his argument, it shows showcases his inverse order theologist. So he says, we understand substance, we understand essence to mean

a compendium of hypostasis. So if in Christ two essences were united, then the problem is that these two abstract essences were united, meaning that the entirety of the Trinity and entirety of humanity was incarnated. This is nonsense. So this is the argument that Serrus gives. The funny thing about this argument is that Nestorius uses the same exact argument against Saint curl. Saint Curyle says that God the Word assumed assumed flesh. Then we find the exact part

this's answers. If God the Word became flesh, then all the Trinity must have become flesh, since the trinity is bound together as one nature. So this is the exact argument, and he means nature to mean essence. He used the same argument as in the story use did a century ago. And again this showcase the inverse or the theology, because they because you can only come to this conclusion that these abstract essences are united. In our view, if you

start your theology with essence. Now, how now, what will be our response, What will we say if we came with this objection, we will say Christ possessed the fullness of the divine essence, but that doesn't mean that when he entered into a specific mode of being, that doesn't mean that the Trinity also entered into that specific mode of being. So he possesses the fullness of the human essence, but that doesn't mean that when he does something, when he in terms of the mode of being the Trinity,

it also goes along the same with humanity. So two nature's two essences can come into unity, but it doesn't affect the rest of the hypostasis in the sense that the rest of the hype states don't become hyposthetically incarnated with Christ. But this is a very i think, very basic level mistake that Service makes, and again not many people really talk about this. And this is the one chance that anti Koncaddians had in trying to understand orteology,

and they completely rejected this. And so for all the humanists on both sides, this completely on both sides, This completely refutes the project that some people are trying to go. Do you have any comments, Jay, or should I move on to a mistake service makes about humanity being an energy.

the Son. Anybody who's read Basil's works knows that that was a central key argument as to how he proved the full divinity of the spirit. So we're going to see this same pattern and Epizzol thirty eight at Basil, I would add, is very crucial to understand. I'm not just saying for you before this whole debate, because it's Saint Basil and the Cappadocians who will take us in the direction that the later fathers at Chalcedon at Ephesus it should be at Ephysis Calcedon, and constant num one

and two it should be two and three. They will build on this theology. So our theology is going in a consistent direction, where nature person will, the properties of nature that apply to human nature, body, mind, soul will, those terms will become very precise and cons In archeology, energy will be very consistent. Right, Basil will argue the

same thing against Eunomius. I just want to stress that for us, the Cappadocians are crucial here, and I think that it's it's very important that even though Severus and certain people will cite the Cave dooceans, I don't think that they really do them justice. And some of the Orientals even seem to question the cave doceans, don't they.

some instances does apparently distinguish essence and energies. But we will actually get something relevant to that later like right now. But again, the significance of this debate that he had with John de Gramarion is that a lot of the arguments John de Gramayon used was really talking about the Cappadocian fathers, right. He used the Cappadocian fathers and used him in a Calcadonian way in order to debate against Severus.

And I think I don't know if it's this letter or a previous letter against John de Gramarion, but I think Severus refers to him as a as a Nestorian atheist Jew. I don't remember like what exact terminology he used, but he like threw a lot of insults to John de Gramaryan. So this wasn't actually just like a minor dispute that he had, Like he was very passionate about

these theological differences. He said that he said that John Gramarian was an Ammonite that was foreign to the laws of Israel, basically implying that like his church is Israel.

So he's very adamant on protecting protecting this view, which the same we cannot say for the Coptics today, the same we cannot say for some Ecumenists, even in the Orthodox camp today, in this regard, we can't I at least, even though he's referring to art side, I at least admire the passion he has for his beliefs in that sense, because I wish I saw that passionate other people, but instead we see ecumenism. But speaking of Severis, there's an

interesting part in God History Dialectic. This is in well, this is in the volume one PDF. I don't know if the pages are different in the in the book itself, but this is in page two twenty three. He just Ferrell says that Severus used the term energy in two senses, right, So he does have a doction of energies, one as the source of act activity or operation, and two when he explains how the humanity itself is understood to be the operational energy of the deity within the incarnation. So

to vindicate this, there are three sections. I'm going to read only one of them, but there's three sections in Severus's letter. One. This is to Ecumenicus where he actually says this. So this is letter one to Ecumenicus Severus of Antioch. He says that if then the Word changed, the manhood which he had hypostatic united to him, not into his nature, for he remained at which he was, but into his glory and operation, and things which manifestly belong to the flesh have come to belong to the

Word in himself. How shall we allow that each of the forms performs its own acts. So he's referring to the tone of THEO obviously, but again three instances in the first letter he says the same thing, like, how the humanity is the operation or energy of the deity with an incarnation. So in the next page Pharaoh says two to the four. This entails two disturbing implications. Number one, is humanity energy of the deity of Christ in the

sense of the actual process of the deities operation? Why extension is creation itself therefore God's energy, and therefore did God have to create as occurred in the originst problem? Or this is the second point is the humanity? But the object of the operation of the deity. Does the humanity not become, to use Servers's own words, a piece of wood or flint to be pushed about here and there, or to use Saint Augustine's words, a lump to be moved about by God from one state to another? As such?

Does God will it each and every moment to be fearful in his humanity? Et cetera, and et cetera. And then we will get on to this later. Actually about this and how this, how Pharaoh actually makes a good case about this? And is this not capable of being understood in doucty sense? In this regard one must recall it several speaks of operation energy as the eruption of the will. Does one arise at the classical amounophysid form of one energy, one will, which has two sets of manifestations.

This is crucial because a lot of people make this mistake. We will get to this more in debt, But a lot of people will see, like diotelite statements from severus and they will think that, oh, that means he believes in two wills. Well not actually, because in all of those statements he talks about it being displayed as two wills. So, for example, a statement I've heard severus says is that in the Crucifixion Christ displays two wills in sulvafic suffering, and a lot of people use that to say, oh,

look we are diotelites. Well, actually, he says displays. That's the key word. He displays. There's two manifestations of the one divine human tandric will. And again we will get to this very much in detail, how this exactly happens, which will actually get to now exactly if you have anything to add, we will get to services theology and how the Oriental theology leads to mono energies monotelicism. This is the contrast even began.

energies and two wills. And this is why I say Maximus will be so so crucial, because Maximus will have a dispute with peis that I've talked about many times, and we're actually going to do a whole talk on this book. As I promised a long time ago. I just forgot about it. And what we're going to see is that there's a dialectic at work in the tension between There's an assumed natural tension on the part of people like Severus, between the human will and the divine will,

whether in Man or in Christ. It's just assume that there's going to be some natural tenson. You actually see that natural tension in Augustine as well. So I want to stress to everybody the place to start on this topic.

going to be difficult, it's going to be confusing. So, of course, as we have recommended for many years, one of the great places to start is the dispute when the story is Saint Alexander and the Christological controversy of the John McGucken book, and then we have I would recommend, especially the Bradshaw book, because the latter chapters of the Bradshaw Book are actually going to show the Augustinian underlying assumptions of simplicity that will not only underlie the Western

Latin tradition of the Triad and their errors on the Trinity and the Philly Oquay, but it's actually going to explain the Western notion of form and essence and simplicity, and this conditions the Christology. This is so important to understand is that the essence energy issue is not just about the Triad. It's crucially about Christology. And this comes to the forefront of the debate at the sixth Council.

So when Saint Maximus argues this against Puris the Monothelite, who is the outworking of this metaphysicite Oriental sense of the term right, because we can understand metaphysis in an

Orthodox way. By the time that it's being debated in Maximus's day Sat Maximus's day, the debate becomes about the natural tension between the human will and energy and the divine and so the debate, a lot of it will be about in this book Christ saying let this cup pass from me, and this will lead eventually to the denial of the gnomic will. So Christ not possessing a gnomic will necessitates that he's a strictly speaking, divine hypostasis

who possesses a divine in human nature. Right, there's no created hypostasis in Christ, because if you possess a created hypostasis, the most likely there would be some notion of a gnomic will. But the argument is often made that he doesn't possess a gnomic will because he's a divine person. So the neo cyrillic defense is what wins out after the Calcedonian debates. So there's two three centuries afterwards of debate after Chalcidon as to what these terms in these

words mean. And again, the solution to all of this, in my view, all this stuff, with the debates with the Orientals, is just simply understanding the consistent patterns of how we understand those words. It's beginning to be crystallized in the times of Athanaceous and into the Cappadocians. I'm not saying it wasn't true before that. It's just beginning to be crystallized as to what hypostasis means, as to

what hypostatized means. It's particularly Leonchious of Jerusalem who really codifies in the Karellian sense, the notion of what in hypostatized means. And that's why this comes to dominate after that period, right after the time of Leonchius into the Six Council. The confession of Saint Sophronius is all saying what we say, right, So that's how we get to this notion that Christ possesses two wills two energies because energy is as Saint John Damascus all the way back

to the Cappadians, Energy signifies the type of nature. If Christ possesses a human and divine nature, then he has to always possess two wills and two energies, even though they're not intension, they're always in symphonia. They're working together in Christ. That's the Orthodox view. So the human will is deified by the divine will and energy, as the Fifth and Six Council specify. As exposition of Orthodox Faithbook three specifies, Christ communicates to his humanity the divine glories

of the uncreated energies. That means it raises and deifies as human nature, but it doesn't lose its natural properties. So there's always a human created aspect to Christ. Even though it's deified. It's never destroyed, it's never divided, it's never absolved. It always retains its natural properties even though it's deified. So when Jesus is resurrected, it's the same body that he had before he was resurrected, but it's deified.

So in the same way, this is the model not just for Christology, it's the model for the essence, energy distinction, how God relates to and interacts with the world. It's the basis for Maximus's logos logi doctrine, right, because the logi interpenetrate all reality. They are the bases of all created reality, being the patterns and ideas and archetypes in the divine mind in the logos. That's why all things

are made through the logos. Again, the logi or uncreated energies, and the same thing is going to be applied here in Christology, in the debate between the wills and the natures. Right, there's a balance here, there's a synergy here, and everything that David's telling you comes to the forefront in this dispute with puis all the stuff that I just said about the logi, the uncreated energy, that's all in this debate right here. That's the whole locus of this debate.

This is what's cited at the sixth Council when Pope Saint Agatha's his letter about Christ possessing two wills and two energies, when San Sophronius writes his letter about Christ possessing two wills and two energies. This book here is the source for this. So what David is going to tell you right now is crucial to the solution of this whole issue. Yep.

because monotilitism is wrong. But in their theology many of their fathers actually teach that. But again I can feel for the anti calocus in the sense of, well, how like can you demonstrate how it is monotilaw is, how it is monel energies right, actually precisely, if that's what we're going to be doing right now. So I'm going to start with a quote from Severus in his Harmon

one hundred and twenty five. He says that hypostasis does not deny Genus or Ussi or abold the shit, but it sets apart and limits in particular icons the one who subsists. Now, what does this really mean if you're talking about Ceverus's system And I also talked about this in the first stream. He believes that reality exists in

three planes. So there's a trinitarian realm, there is the intelligible realm, the realm of the angels, right, and then there's a material world that we inhabit in right now. So it's key to understand that for him, like the unity of the hypostasis of Christ, it's not like two material substances that are mixed. Right, they each operate in their own reality. They're in synthesis, which is what we will also say it is a synthesis. Saint Kill himself

says that the union is a synthesis. So in that point we agree it Severus that there is a synthesis. But because of his system, which is based on Plato, based on Platonism, and he's trying to basically christianize that system, I will say like he's attempting to at least christianize the system, unlike like trying to hellenizing it. But the problem is that in his system, these two natures, these two hypostasis, they operate in their own realms. So the

vills operate in their own reality. So the divine will, the way it operates, it operates in the trinitarian realm. The problem here is is that CEUs himself says, I believe in hormily which one is eighty one. I believe harmily eighty one, where he talks about that the human will is an iconic representation of the divine will, just as the body is the iconic representation of the soul. So there's a synonymity here. So right, just like how the soul animates the body, so does the divine will

animate the human will. And this is precisely what we mean by monoetulit in severus, it is the divinevill that animates the human will and gives it life. It's it's because that the human will is non self subsistent. It needs the divine will in order to exist, just like how the human hypostasis is non self subsistent. It requires the divine hypostasis in order to exist. So this applies

to energies, and it also applies to the wills. And if you can, and if you if you're not convinced, you might say, ah, you know, that seems like a different argument. Well, let's hear from Severus himself. This is from text twenty six, his letter to John de Huguminos. He says that and he quotes from Saint Dionistius areopaguide, which, again, to be fair to Severus, he is quoting these people,

and he considers Saint Dionistius as an authentic apostle. So to his credit, he tries to be patristic, and he tries to be logical with the Kappadocins. But here's what

he says. He says that, as we have already written, this is to John the Hegumenus text twenty six of the Service of Antioch book from Paul and Allen, as we have already written extensively in other writings, we have understood and understand the statement of the old Holy Deonist Hystereopa Guide, who says, when God became human, he performed for us a new divine human tantric activity as meaning one composite activity. But this is what this, here is

what he says that we will disagree with heavily. So so far it's good, but then he says, in our eyes it cannot be understood other than as a rejection of every duality. So here he is very obviously saying that we don't accept the duality of wills. And there's also numerous quotations that we have that we will get to where he believes that separate civil So this is this obviously strongly implies that Service rejects dietelicism, and this

is his basis right. The tom of Leo was actually very crucial in the six Segumentical Council because precisely it spoke of two forms of operating, and two bills and two energies operating. And this is actually very this is the main part that he disagrees. So he disagrees with the tom of Leo not because of the two forms, but because the two forms have their own energies, have their own operations and their own wills. So this is

from against Julian. This is text thirteen in the pauland Allen book, when when he's responding to Julian of Holycarnassus who says that Christ has a non different difference, right, he says, so, so Julian accuses servers of believing in two properties. Right, He said, oh, you believe in two properties, you believe in two natures, you believe in two operations and all that stuff. You're like the Calcedonians. And Sarah's response in reply to these things, we shall say, in short,

one simple true word. Show us that we have written somewhere that Christ exists in two natures and into properties. But you cannot say so, for in every place each person discovers that our loveliness and anatomatizes those who divide the one Christ and the duplication of natures and after operations and their properties. Right, So notice how he talks about dividing the Christ into two operations in the duplication

of operations of the natures. And this also, this statement is very crucial because he also implies again in a duplication of natures. Remember, for him, nature's hypostasis in a duplication of natures and of their operations and their properties. Now what's the problem. So for him, hypostasis is where energy and will resides. But there's a very simple objection to that. And you we talked about numerous times if if energy was proper to hypostasis, then they triteism, right exactly.

So again this theology in another sense, we can show, we can see that this theology kind of leads to so.

in the triad, it's not that way. We have one will in God, one energy, three hypostases, but in terms of the incarnation it's not that way. It's different.

a distinction here. And then my friend obviously went on to say, well, but the persons in the trinity are distinct, does that mean the Trinity is divided? Not Actually severe says yes in the sense of hypostasis, but he literally got no answers from that. So yeah, there is there is like different applications of Christology and Trinitarian theology. It's

kind of like double theology in that sense. And so far, I haven't really gotten any responses because usually again and most of these people, they will adamantly try to make their position the same as ours, right, they will try to adamantly be diotelites, even though as you can see, their father's reject diotelitism. I mean, he says there is no duality in Christ. Theandric will right. So the synthetic

bill is one. So I haven't really heard any proper responses, and you're gonna have a hard time hearing a proper response usually because either they don't know of these things this is pretty like high level or actually that's pretty much most of the reason, or they just want to pretend to be like us. So that these are the main problems that occur in these debates. I'll continue on with some of the quotations of Servius. This is Serius

letter forty seven. He says, considering the general benefit of a union of the Holy churches and demanding an open anatom of the things done as Kulcadon against the Orthodox faith and of the wicked tom of Leo, and of those who speak of two natures after the union, and the operations of these and their properties.

It's also a man who accepts the right confession of the edict if it is enough for him, and he does not add the exact words which remove the heresy, opens the door to impiety through the ambiguity of the written words, and falls under the synthesis of the Holy gregory in that he is doing detriment to the truth.

But if besides the edict, he both confesses one incarrtent nature of God the Word and anathematizes those who speak of two natures after the union, and the operations and properties of these, and all the impiety that was confirmed with Kalkadon. He has removed the danger that is expected from the ambiguity. So this is letter thirty nine. Another this is the final letter that I will read. This is his letter to Ecumenicus, Letter one. Accordingly, good doctrine

is contained an end of the Syrian king. For it anathematizes those who divide the one son who has hyperstack united to flesh, into two natures, and the operations and properties of the same two natures. So again this is the main difference that they have with the tom of Leo. It's not really about nature per se, about the energy's bills and all that jazz. That's really the real difference here.

Oriental theology. The thing about Felix Sennus of Madboch is his theology is even more explicitly heretical. So if you look at page sixty eight and sixty nine in the book Three Monophysite Christologies, Seras of Fantic, filix Is of Mabig and Jacobo Sarug. This book was written by ROBERTA. Chestnut, Page sixty eight and sixty nine. Felix Senda says, Felixids

believes in materialism, so he preaches materialism. He believes that the body is the densest, the soul is lighter, and God is the lightest being of false so he believes in some form of materialism. Having made that, note what he says in hormily in harmony twelve, he believes that the body and the soul have two vills at war with each other. So this is the body soul right, human body and soul. So the body has a has

a vill and the soul has a will. And this raised an obvious question, right, how is it that we have one vill as human beings? Then if body and the soul has a vill and they are involved with each other, well, it's dialectics of opposition. The vills are in a synthetic union where they battle over each other. And if the body then right, if the bodily vill wins, it's adultery. If the soul wins, it's a good union.

And this isn't harmonly twelve of Philoxenus of Mambog. He also goes on to say that the bodily will doesn't merely lust after food or sexual satisfaction or any of that. This is not what the body will is. It's literally about everything about the world. So philosophy, science, rationality, argumentation, debates. These are all lusts of the body. They're all part of the bodyvill and the soul lusts after the things

of the spirit. Right, So for the spiritual realm, this is what the So it's like the soul is like this hyper pietistic, and the body is this like I will always debate it like this crazy debate maniac guy. If we were if we were personifying these two bodybuil body soulvills and these two as Philoxenis himself says, I post I told either screenshot Jay if you're showing that. In Harly ten eleven and twelve, he consistently says that the body and the soul are by nature opposed to

each other. So by nature they're opposed to each other, according to Philix Sinus of mad Bog, So this is how humanity is from. And again, why are we talking about body and soul? Well, it deals with anthropology, but it also deals with Christ himself, right, it also deals with this also applies to Christ himself and his body and his soul. Now, some people might say, oh, you know, this is too far. We don't we reject that. Okay, they'll say this is too far, we don't agree with everything.

Philoxin says, well, that's a problem because Severus and philox Sinnus were good friends. They knew each other, they knew what they believed, they knew each other. So we will say philox Innes doesn't have he doesn't have a different christology. He compliments. I will say Severus's Christology, because as I said, they're both in the same team. They both they both very well know each other. But to repeat on the on the on the human will, on how the human

will is formed. Again, the human will is synthetically formed, just like how the divine and human will are synthetically formed. We call this the tiandric vill and these are in opposition with each other. And just like that, the divine will and the human will are also by nature in

opposition to one another. There's an example. So there's an example of Service of Antioch where he speaks of again Christ displaying two wills in sulif excepting He then goes on to say that that Christ, in his humanity, was very fearful and Philix Sinistan's service both agree that he was more fearful than a normal human. Bul right, he was incredibly fearful, but at the same time he had

divine courage. And what Saint Maximus will say in response to this is that fear and courage are both human emotions, right, So there these both pertain to the human will of Christ. They're not in dialectical tension, right. The human will wasn't scared and the divine will was. We'll say, oh, you know whatever, it's fine. There wasn't any tension like that between those two. But in their view, in the Oriental view,

there is a tension. And what's really important again, this will is synthetic, just like how christ will is synthetic. A huge implication, and we can see from Servius himself and most likely Filoxcentus, they both reject epicatus stasis, and that's obviously because they want to follow the fathers, right, so we can credit them for that. They're trying to

remain orthodox. But the problem is in their theology. If the divine will in Christ animated the human will, then how is it that in the recapitulation, how is it that Christ is not gonna animate or human wills. Again, how is it that because in Christ the human will was subsumed and was dominated by the divine will, then that logically follows the same should be happening in the Esctan. Therefore,

universalism should actually be true. Isn't that truth? Shouldn't In the Oriental view, universalism be the consistent theological truth instead of whatever version of apricateastasis they have. So someone Stephen barstud Highly even takes this one step further and he says that and he's a heretic according to the Oriental position, but his view is very interesting because I think it's

logically consistent. He says that not only will we all be said, but we will all be consubstantial with God himself. So again, this position is heretical in the Oriental Church. So this is not an attack against Oriental churche. But I'm just saying that this is what logically should follow if you have this doctrine of phils, this is what should be happening. Because if, again, if in Christ, the divine will dominates the human will, then who's to say

the same won't be happening to us. That's why we have a synergy of the human and divine wills. We don't have an opposition, because the moment you have an opposition, there are many different theological problems that come out of that. So that's Wold. And if you look at Jacob of Saruk, just a small chapter on him on Hills, he himself like he absolutely believes that there's one nature of one veil,

one energy. Like he's very open about that. And he's a saint in the Truth is an important scene, not theologically speaking, but as a general saint, he is very important in the communion. So do you have anything to add about Vill's j.

with heroes. He'll actually make the argument that if there's only one sense that we are directing our gaze towards, then the originistic definition of free will being defined as a choice between good and evil is by necessity married to the notion of turning the gaze away from the one, the essence of the One. This is another reason why

we can't hold to the beatific vision. So this is absolutely connected to what we're talking about in terms of Christology, because in the Esketon, we're not just staring into the beatific vision of the essence of God. That's why the Eastern fathers nowhere teach this. They teach that we see, as Saint Maximus says, the many things around God in the Esketon the vision of God, and the Esketon is the vision of the uncreated logie, and so that's a

direct experience of God. But it's also the ability to retain free will. How do we retain free will if there's no evil? Because evil? Free will is not defined dialectically between a choice of good and evil. That's only characteristic of the fallen state. When we're not in the fallen state anymore, there's the ability to chew use and to move the will as a choice between multiple goods, and so all of the church fathers will define free will as the ability to make choices this thing or

that thing. But if there's only the essence of God, then you can't potentially or possibly actually choose or will anything other than the essence of God. This is very crucial because absolute define simplicity is not just a doctrine of denying the essence synergy distinction, and also applies to Christology. It makes Christology impossible. It leads to the dialectical tension in people like Severus in the way that they define simplicity.

Severus will actually use the neoplatonic definition of what simplicity is when he talks about what these natures are in themselves, and so he makes them reducible into one dimensional categories in terms of what nature is or is supposed to be, especially in the incarnation. And so this has an effect on one's doctrine of free will and choice. And so in the Esketon, all those positions that believe in the beatific vision in the Roman Catholic Latin sense, they all

deny free will. In the Escaton redefine it to say, well, your will is truly free now because you don't make choices, you only choose the essence of God. That's a complete rejection, in denial of what all the church fathers taught free will was. Did Christ possess free will when he was incarnate? Of course he did. Did he only will one thing? Did he only will the essence of God? I mean, it's ridiculous, right, No, Christ, just as God can can freely will to do different things. God freely chose to

create the world. Christ freely walked around and willed to do what he did, and he freely willed in both of his natures right, the human will and will were freely operating.

I want to kind of talk about to move on. I want to move on to Phillixinus's eucharistic problems. I mentioned this in the first stream as well with Jay. So there are two. So Christ, for Philoxinus exists as God by nature and as a man by miracle. So there's like two different modes of existences. There's a miraculous existence that that he exists out by the virtue of his will and his natural existence as God. Now this

is relevant because this goes into the eucharistic theology. And so as an example I used is, let's say that you're an atheist and you're anti Caan Church, and phillix Sinus is right there like looking at you, and you take the Euchrist. Your atheist, you don't believe in anything, but you somehow manage to take the Eucharist, and you come back to Philixinus and you're like, hey, I took the Euchrist and you said that I was. You guys say that I was going to get that, but nothing

happened to me. And philix sins will respond to that, well, yes, because you don't have faith. You don't have faith, so the way you observe the Euchrist, that's just mere bread and wine. But if you had faith. Right, the mode which the Euchrist will exist via those who have faith is that it will really be the body and blood of Christ. Now, this in a sense makes some sense, but the problem is that if you apply this to Christ then there are some problems. Right. For example, if

you don't have faith, then is Christ God? And this kind of makes people make enables a question to be asked to philixins and leads to certain rabbit holes. That's pilix Sinnis himself will reject, but his understanding of being by nature and being by faith, and there's kind of

two levels, two modes of being, enables problematic conclusions. So the argument I'm making here is that if the Euchrist changes depending on how you view the Eucharist, then naturally, by that logic, Christ should be changing depending on how you view Christ. Right, So if you look at the Euchrist without faith, obviously Philoxenus will say, well, obviously as bread and wine. But if you have faith, that will be the body blood of Christ. So if Christ was

in front of us, will Christ will be? Will he be a mere human being? If I didn't have faith? Well, this this is some kind of like a relativistic understanding of reality and to finance. This is kind of like the end. But I would like to talk about Jacob of sarug who's by the way to a as a small as side. He is in the two thousand and four Roman Martyrology, so he's a saint in the Latin rights as well. So good job in Roman Catholics. But and he's an anticocatoon right, he wasn't in communion with

Orthodox Church. So there's some really problematic things that Jacob says. I'm going to list some of them in Harmony fifty three. He says that the disciples ask Jesus. He's talking about Judas, right, the disciples ask Jesus, who has gone out of the sphere of the sphere of the light of our Lord to go and mix with the darkness in a great, great movement. So there are multiple senses in mixture is used.

And most of the time, if you're talking about philoxiniesen Severus, when they speak of a mixture, they don't mean it in a heterodox sense, right, They don't really mean it in a heterodox sense. It's they're limited by their own terminology. But Jacob, in that sense, when he's speaking of Judas's essence mixing with the darkness. He is first of all, saying that evil has a real existence, that it's not

a mere privation, but it actually exists. But at the same time, Judas is essence mixed with evil, and that's and this is actually a Gnostic idea that Jacob uses. And as a matter of fact, like I'm not going to talk about every single nasticizing thing that Jacob says, but if you read the book ROBERTA. Chestnuts Treatment off side Christologist Severus of Antioch, Felixus of madbook Jacob of Sarrug, if you read the section about Jacob of Surug, there's

many different things that are nasticizing. Does that mean that he is gnostic? I don't think he is by intention, but the stuff that he says has a lot of gnostic messagery. So he refers to Christ, he refers to the Mother of God, to Mary as as some sort of an envelope, like he's some sort of like a sacred secret envelope that is hidden from people and these small minor gnostic teams. Again, so I won't say that he's gnostic theologically speaking, but there's another.

Letters sixty five. Very it's it's a long letter where he deals with multiple questions. Some of them are triological questions, some of them are dealing with theopaschism. Some of them are dealing with other theological stuff. But I believe in the first part he kind of talks about that that Christ is the object of the contemplation of that. Does it? Don't the Roman Catholic say the same thing? Or am I wrong? Good day?

then they sort of make a lot of mistakes. People like tation and people like that, So we have to be really careful that or have to see the exact the way that they do appropriate the psychological analogy of

mind and will the father mind will breath. This kind of stuff is pretty common even in the Eastern Fathers but the problem is that they still couch it within the context of Orthodox theology and Christology, whereas in Roman Catholicism, or in what we're seeing here, because you get a and oftentimes a smushing of nature into person, of properties into essence, of energy into essence. That's where it starts to become problematic because now we're getting we're confusing the

energies of the Godhead with the persons. Right, So the Spirit is the love of God in a strict identity. You see, the logos is quite literally the reason of the Father and not the manifestation of the reason of the Godhead. Because reason, if we're talking to the divine mind here. Okay, mind is a property of nature. So all three hypostases possess the divine mind. So the Son, in a unique mode manifest He manifests in his unique mode the mind of God, as does the Spirit, and

as does the Father. But we wouldn't identify the logos with the mind of God in a strict identification. Does that make sense? So you see the same problem here is just once again in a lot of these errors and heresies, whether it's Roman Catholics and whether it's these guys the mistake is to reduce essences or natures, or beings or persons to their properties or to their faculties.

of the child of Mary, the only begone. So we will say that we have made an image of God. But Jacob actually Harmly hundred and twenty five is saying that we're made in the image of Christ. We particularly made the image of the incarnate Christ. So God sees the future, sees the Christ, and sees Christ in the future and forms your image based on him. And I would say this is interesting, but it also denies that we're made in the image of the triune grad. So

this has a huge problem in the theologist. Jacob and I will say this all of this stuff will be pretty hard for me to recap. But all of this stuff is pretty much what I had to talk about today, unless you have something else to add in, something else that you want me to talk about, which we can or if we could go to the super chants. What do you say, Jay?

these energies and these wills being in opposition. But that is a pretty advanced approach if you're new to this topic. I want to stress that the place to begin the Christological debates, I wouldn't even say jump to Pope Saint Leo's tome. It helps to have this in your mind.

This is the best introduction to the issues and the debates within the storia is because Arianism and Astorianism kick off the problems that David is talking about, right, because it's Cyril who will use the miaphysis formula, which we would read in an orthodox way to mean not a denial of the retaining of the two properties of the two natures. I would also recommend after the Syrial book, or you could start with this one, please read the Bradshaw book if you really want to get into these

topics and read the whole book. Don't read the first half of it just about Aristotle, because he will get up into the conclusions of these issues, all the way into Augustine and into Aquinas and the contrasting of Palamas and Aquinas, and the contrasting of Saint Maximus in terms of the logos and the logi, and how that's not the same thing as what you get in the Latin tradition.

Bradshaw one of the authorities on these topics, right, He's everything you've ever heard me say is really just echoing what Bradshaw has said. And Bradshaw is going to vindicate all the stuff that David just said. Now he's not

talking about the oriental issues. But what I'm trying to tell you is that the philosophical assumptions that underlie the debate of all the Orientals in the Monophysite blah blah blah, all that stuff up into the Mono Thelites and the Mono Innergists is the same philosophical assumptions that this book is about, all the way up into Severus. So these are crucial texts. They're very key. And if you read these texts and you understand them, I highly recommend it.

Please read the David Bradshaw book. The Frail book is great, but it's a little more advanced, right, And if you don't want to go into that, just read the Dispute with Purists. You'll see all the stuff that you've heard me say for all these years, all this stuff I constantly repeat. I mean, it's all right here. I'm not making this stuff up. I mean, David, let me ask you a question. So a year ago, when you and I started interacting a lot on my discord and we

were having a lot of these discussions. I'm not just trying to tellt myself, but I wanted to get your account of this. Now that you have doved, dived, diven, you've jumped into this issue for the last year, would you say that you see the symphony of the topics that I originally was arguing with you, not that you were disagreeing, but trying to explain to you a year ago. Does it not seem to cohere? Do the issues not make sense? Does it not? Does it not make sense?

that the Orthodox Church fathers talk about. I don't see that, for example, intomism. I don't see any toomism in the Church Fathers. I do see a lot of the stuff that you told me you were talking about.

They have two different notions of divine illumination. It doesn't really matter because the Doctor of simplicity is exactly the same and so therefore the exemplar doctrine of the Latin Church is not the same thing as the Logi doctrine, and so therefore natural theology in the Tomistic sense is not and cannot be the Orthodox position.

you're worried about. So for example, if you want to if you're worried about specific points, like in my case, when I start to understand Orthodox theology a lot more, what I did, for example, is that I looked into certain characters like Theodore It of Cyrus. For example, I read Ernistus by Theodore It of Cyrus, and that really helped me a lot, because I saw the things that Saint kill said in him, and it really helped me

a lot. If you want like direct, if you want diaphysicism in the Church Fathers and this currently Calcadonian argumentation, I will recommend you to check out Leonti's of Jerusalems against them onoph Sizes. I did a book review of that in part three of the of the video series. If you want to understand sever in theology like what Servus himself says, I think you can go to first hand sources if you understand the terminology. So the best book you can get is that Robert the Chestnut book

The trem on off site Christologies. You can get Serrus of Antioch book on Servius of Antioch by Paulin Allen. If you want to read him directly. If you want to read about the Council of Kalkadon, I would have said the Defense of the Kalkadon the Defense of the Council of Calculu in the East by Patrick Gray will be great. The problem is there's only like three books available online and the cheapest one is like seventy seven dollars, so I don't think that's possible. That's why I'm probably

going to try the book review of that sometime. But if you want to read about the Counts of Calculu, you can read the Acts of the Council of Kalkadon. And oh yeah, there's also I didn't read it yet, but I think The Byzantine Christ by Demetrius Patrellos is also relevant to this basically any any if you look at my announcement stream, I cite all of the books that I read and I will be using in in the in the future, in the future videos I will be making, which I made like all of them basically

right now, including this one. Those books are what you should be looking for, I think, and it's very important to understand these clearly Culcadonian theology and theological theological points because it will help, It will actually change the debate for you. For me, the first time I heard arguments, I thought they meant nature is is Ussia, and that's what I kind of I was kind of complacent. I was like, oh, you know, it's so silly that they

will believe that Cristi is only divide haha. And then understanding these things, understand this debate, help me really get the debate. And that's the best thing you can do, because many people, except for me and Jay, I think like they won't really be helpful in this regard. There you will either hear like arguments that are that are straw men that don't represent the oriental position will or you will hear arguments saying, oh, be actually believe the

same thing. So basically two groups of people that don't really understand what's going on will say all of this stuff. And so the books that I mentioned in parts here, ultimately you should read all of them, I think, but if you want in order, if you're like completely, if you don't have any knowledge, the Alexandra book by far John McGuckin is great. And then I will say for me, I mean the Goddess to Dialectic book was really it

wasn't as advanced as I think it will be. I kind of understood a lot of this stuff, but maybe that's because I kind of expected some of the stuff to be said there, old lady. But I think that will also like, because if you don't understand general Christology, you're going to have a very hard time read getting some of the arguments that many for Saints make. Now let's say, yes, book would be great.

on the Pelicon series. The Pelicon series is great, so it covers we're mainly only concerned with like the first you know, thousand years and then into the Middle Ages, so we're not really concerned with modern Protestantism in modern theology. The two in this it's a five volume series, but the first three of the Pelicons that are really good. So I think in the near future. We will also do an analysis from one hundred pages of notes I took.

And then if somebody wants another, let's say I had another introductory Yeah, another introductory book to these topics is also Pelican's Christianity and Classical Culture, right, And so yes, he will talk a lot about natural law. He will talk a lot about the principles of nature, as does Saint Maximus. But does that mean the same thing as Thomism, right, So no, it's not word concept fallacy. So if you want maybe a broader perspective to start with these topics,

these are the books that I would recommend. And then, of course, don't forget the Saint Justinian himself has a great work on the person of Christ.

see in the Seventh Ecumenical Council. So actually, if you read the Sonoticon of Orthodoxy, it's a great refutation of seeing how the Roman Catholic Church canonically departed from what we have in the Seventh Synod. And again, somebody should find out if Uniates affirm the Sonoticon, because that would be another great argument if I can find this out. If Uniates do affirm the Sonoticon of Orthodoxy from the Seventh Synod, then yeah, that's just one of many, many

Roman Catholic contradictions. But yes, I do think occult Renaissance stretch of Rome showed me a lot of things that I missed about the Renaissance. So it's a really good analysis of the second millennium. His severe lack, of course, is not knowing about the first millennium, as is unfortunately the case with many Roman Catholics. So he says blessed Lin, and he is citing the book saying Rome defected in

the thirteenth century. Yeah. I mean, you could have different arguments as to exactly where to pinpoint the date, because it's more of a long flowering of a movement all the way back to the time of Augustine. Again, I'm really I'm tired of debating this issue. So read the Bradshaw book. The chapter on Augustine is really good. It just really solidifies it in a just a really clear way in a brief chapter. So we shouldn't have to keep debating these topics. It's pretty easy to understand if

you read these works. But so there's a development. It's not necessarily we're not saying Gustin is evil. He made some mistakes, as did Saint Gregor Nissa other people. Saint Maximus correct mistakes and errors that sing Gregor Nissa made, So there's nothing wrong with us. We don't follow one dude. We follow the consensum, consensus, patrum right consensus of the fathers. So I would say, go easy, don't rush into these topics,

take your time, it'll become evident. And yes, there is a good historical critique of the Renaissance in that book. Franklin Chan nineteen ninety nine. Thank you for all your work, Jay, and thank you for your great guest.

to say stuff like that. But yeah, I'll have a debate in two months about this exact issue, so tune in for that. It's going to be great, all right.

Saint Cyril saying the same thing. He's just echoing. And this is a response to people who think that because you make a distinction, that therefore it's a division. So again, remember the dictum that making distinctions does not entail composition or division. Sometimes a distinction might entail composition. For example, we make a distinction between body and soul and humans. In humans, body and soul is composite. Right, It is a composite thing because it's a creation that is brought

together when God creates us. Right, we have a body, we have a soul, and so in humans, though in the way that we actually are, it's uniteed. Right, the body suffuses the soul, the soul suffuses the body. In the argumentation of many of the Church fathers. So when we talk about making a distinction, right, and we say that it's a virtual distinction, that doesn't mean that the distinction isn't also real. It's in the context of in

theology making the distinction, right. Saint John Damascus makes the same argument in the Exposition of Orthodox Faith, where he says that just because we make a virtual distinction does not mean that we make a division. It also doesn't mean that there isn't a real distinction. Right, So you can say both that there's a virtual distinction and a real distinction.

mere conceptual distinction inside our heads. This is still based on reality, but it is the wavy understanding distinction is what is highlighted here, and this is exactly what the Kalcadonian definition. Boy, it does when they say that Christ is into natures, it says according to the intellect, which is exactly what Saint Chrios is in his second letter to Seqensis. So again, this claimed that Kalkadon believes in this story in theology is patently false. It's absolutely yeah.

Is it a virtual distinction yes? Is it also a real distinction, yes, So we don't have to set up either oars as if there's only one or the others. So I'll read one eighty four. Different actions have different effects, not on one effect, as was demonstrated by the example the sword being hardened by fire. If the operation of

the sword and that fire are mutually united. And yet we observe that the fire's effect is burning the iron, and the irons effect is cutting, even though they are not distinguished in the burning cut or in the cutting burn, just as the effect of heaven or earth. Then it is not possible to say that there is one work unless there is only one action. If thou has maintained that the effect of one energy is several distinction distinct

works by Christ, then thou must maintain one action. Or if thout is teach an innumerable number of actions, then thou must also teach that the energies are innumerable. But our inquiry is not about the works, whether we're discussing things external to Christ, but about things within Christ himself. That is to say, about the natural principles of the essences of Christ, whether he remained defective from the union

or not. If he was defective, then it is possible for a nature that is defective in a natural energy to genuinely exist. If it is not defective, then the energy is either understood to be a component or a principle of the essence, or it is acquired from those things external to him. If the energy is proper to nature and it's not acquired from external sources, then it is possible for nature to exist, then as possible either for a nature that exists without actions or the converse

to be true. Nature can neither be conceived nor can exist without energies proper to it. To believe this is to believe that He operates in each nature naturally, and that there are not natures that are altered thereby. So I don't see unless it's in a footnote, it's not one eighty four. But again just because don't think in either ors. Just because he says there's a dis like we would say that there's a nature person distinction in God. Right, Does that mean we're dividing God because we make a

distinction between nature and person? No, And so after the incarnation, can we still make conceptual distinctions about Christ? Absolutely? Does the fact that there's conceptual distinctions mean that he's blended in a monofsite sense and that there aren't two nature? Still? No, because the union is hypostatic, it's hyposthetized. So hopefully that's helpful.

Let's see. But if you want to put in the chat, because it's not one eighty four, if you want to pick out the specific paragraph that you that you think it might be in where you're talking about. I can read that paragraph telegram five bucks. Can you set your telegram to public? It's on private, nobody can find it, including potential people interested in orthodoxy. Yeah, I'll have to do that. I didn't realize it was private, So I'll look in there and figure out how.

more of it, you can always follow my channel. You can again, if you're interested about Kolkada but you're not really interested about diaphysicism in the Church Fathers, you can. You don't have to watch the videos in a chronological order. You can watch it anytime in any like. If you want to watch part three first and then part two and then part one, that's fine. That's fine. So yeah, that's all I have to say. I think awesome.

Mark Hackard, geopolitical commentator analysts. You've seen him on art and other sites Sold the East and Mark is also putting out a new article as well on the controversial issue of Uribezmanov. How do we understand and take the off sided. Uri Bezumanov talks, Well, we're gonna be looking at that, We're gonna be looking at defectors, espionage, geopolitics tonight when Mark Hackard joins me to discuss those topics. And but you know, we're just crazy conspiracy theorists here.

We don't actually interview experts, people with graduate degrees in these topics. You know, I didn't just write my master's thesis, most of it on this topic. No, we're all just crazy conspiracy theorists. We don't actually know what we're talking about. There's no such thing as conspiracy. There's no espionage, there's no I think none of this actually relates to the Orthodox world, even though now everybody knows it in relationship to the Ukraine. In that situation, it's all fake, it's

not real, it doesn't exist, and we're just crazy conspiracy theorists, crazies. Well, we're gonna get crazy tonight with Mark Hackard, So join me tonight. I think about let's see eight or nine Central somewhere in there. I'll have the show page up here in a little bit. But thank you David, much appreciate it. Thank you Jay all right, Everybody, have a good night.