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