Pt. 2 Vatican 2, Geopolitics, the CIA & the Jesuits - Wemhoff's Book (Half)

Lippmann then began to draft the propaganda for the Allies during World War One. He thus assisted Woodrow Wilson in drawing up the fourteen points. Who did Woodrow Wilson work for the bankers? Read Colonel House, Colonel Edwin Mandel House, Woodrow Wilson, agent of the Banking League. At the same time, the budding science of Watsonian behaviorism provided Walter Lippmann with the principles to control and manipulate society. Now we enter

Now enters in.

Psychoanalysis and Freud the utilization of sexual imagery in advertising.

The utilization of.

Stimulus response to manipulate emotions, the utilization of Freudian.

Psychoanalysis.

All of this begins to be utilized at the behest, not just of psychological warfare for military purposes, but application to the domestic population through admin through TV, through mass media.

Thus we see Freudian principles.

We see all of these degenerate Skinnarian Pavlovian behaviorists Watsonian principles adopted, and the idea is, utilize these tricks to sell people on the new American ideology. We can thus utilize all these psyops tricks to debase the people to control their perception. Now we can reorient their whole perception of life, of the world, of religion, the church, America, Americanism. In other words, they had mastered social engineering by this

Culture consumer.

All created by Rand Corporation, even to the extent of how to convince people that they are atomistic individuals, and as an atomistic individual their life could be fulfilled by instantaneous pleasure principle being satiated through consumerism. It's all bs

So you've been sold bullshit. It's not true. It's a lie.

It's all based on pragmatism, atheism, liberalism, skinarianism, Pablovianism, Watsonianism, materialism, and it's all a lie. And they even say it doesn't matter if it's true or false, because it's used to control you. That's what the architects of this bullshit say.

Do you understand that.

The new gospel, the new ideology, would be the quote great liberal tradition.

This was something that Henry Loce made up.

So we got to give an embodiment to a tradition so that America can accept what America is, to redefine America, not that it wasn't already liberal, but to redefine it in such a way that it could be used as an engine of the wasp, skull and bones establishment.

What does he come up with? The liberal tradition? What is this? Let's let Henry Loose himself explain what this is.

Lu said, America is the supreme embodiment of the tradition. Garibaldi wrote that Abraham Lincoln spoke of our country as the apostle of liberty, the harbinger of progress. Note the religious language, the apostle of liberty.

This is loose.

Still, America is the great and magnetic hope and example for the world. It will draw to herself all who wish to make Europe at last beautiful and free, the last great effort being made to establish the liberal tradition that is political freedom, equality justice, freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, common decency, the rights of men and women. Excuse me, common decency, the rights of men and men. It is a very close battle. The odds are as far as we can see, about fifty to fifty. So

Generic things. Freedom of.

Is freedom of political freedom, freedom of ideas, equal justice, freedom of opinion, common decency.

What are you talking about? Right?

But again, remember from the propaganda standpoint, one of the basic rules of.

Propaganda is.

Use the most generic possible slogans because that allows everybody to interpret the slogans anyway they want.

Right.

You don't want to use a lot of high level precision in your propaganda.

Just keep it dumb, dude, because the.

More generic and catchy it is, the easier it is to bring people in because they can read into it whatever they want.

Right. Just think of the social justice.

Type things, right, same principle here. All the social justice stuff is is the latest incarnation of this stuff. Loose believe that the United States Constitution is the Liberal tradition. As a corollary of his belief in the Constitution, Henry Luce believed that business is essentially civilization. Business is life. Yes,

Where have we heard that before? Oh, that's the Masonic freedoms. And if he's in.

Skulling bones, what is skull and bones? Oh, that's Lodge three two two. Lodge three two two is the Germanic order of skull and Bones. The lodge of skull and Bones originates there, which is teaching the four freedoms of freemasonry, condemned by Potelar the thirteenth. So notice American Enlightenment Freemasonry embodied in the skull and Bones dictum, the four freedoms. Henry Loose is oss oss is skull and bones. Henry Loos is skull and bones, Skull and bone lodge three

Science we're doing here. It's not that hard to figure out. Next we have to talk about we're at two hours. But next we have to talk about Halfred mckinder, the Heartland Theory, the classic geopolitical analysis, the Milner Group, Rhodes Rothschild Milner, the Society of the Elect that's the secret society that was set up to create the Anglo American

To the establishment of the State of Israel.

Yes, I know about the Balfour Declaration, I know about Sykes Pico Treaty.

I know about all that stuff.

We'll get to that, but suffice to say that for part one, we will end it there because we've covered a lot of meat here.

But I hope you get the point here.

The point of what we're saying with this is that it's not as simple as saying that like the Vatican was subverted by Freemasons. Venari's Ault of Indida document shows that the Alt of Indida Lodge took over the papacy.

It's it's more than that.

Okay, there's power players like the Anglo American establishment, the CIA, who co opt openly the Roman Catholic Church. We don't have to resort to up to obscure Masonic conspiracies. We already know what happened, okay, and it's clear in this book. So, uh, we're gonna do this book next. We're gonna we're gonna work our way through all of it. Please, if you do want to get into it, I recommend the book.

So I said that we would do also Q and A.

So I'm in a good mood and I'm enjoying talking about this material. And if anybody wants to hop on in the discord, feel free to. You can go into the discord and ask questions about the material that we covered today, theological questions.

I don't care what you want to talk about.

If you get too ridiculous, I'll just kick you out. So don't waste my time or anybody's time with stupid stuff. So let me pull up the discord here as I answer the superchats. So we got a few superchats here. Thank you guys for those superchats. So m curry, we explained what wasp was. Ross, thank you for that twenty dollars. Nice twenty bucks from old Ross there. I don't know who Ross is, but thank you Ross. Is that Ross

Uh.

I guess that's like the main ones. But yeah, so.

We'll have a lot of fun with that sopranos analysis because that was it was great shows on my favorite shows. I loved it. I was happy with the ending. I thought it ended really cool.

Anyway, So when we do that or when we do the more jokey streams, there's a lot more impressions in those. So but thank you for that three dollars taco jack for three bucks, say is what is the purpose of riots and violence? This is a strategy of control Ko.

So if you read there's.

A great essay at Global Research by Andrew Marshall, young guy around my age, but he wrote a book or a long essay called Arc of Crisis, and it's about Brazinski's model of control chaos. So if you want to understand the purpose of riots and violence, go read Andrew Marshall's essay Arc of Crisis about Brazenski. But essentially it just serves to propel thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Right, Dorman three sixty, you may be right about the subversion of the Latins,

I'll take that. I'm too mean, you know whatever.

Hey, we just had trads all day hanging out in my discord. Nobody got mad. It was perfectly civil. We talked for three hours to multiple two least two or three different trades. So it's not the case that everybody is that I'm mean to everybody.

All this kind of nonsense. And imagine the people who are the.

Old we're the Church of the Crusaders, We're the crusading Knights. And then you turn around and your butt hurt because supposedly I'm mean. I thought you were a crusader. Bro I thought you're a crusader. You're LARPing as a knight, but you're mad because I'm mean.

All right, So there's a super chat. So we got four hundred people. Welcome everybody.

Thank you for those and feel free to uh yeah, you're gonna like the Paul impression. It's it's gonna be on point. But we'll save that for the soprano string that Jamie and I will do. So come to the general chat in the discord if you want to let me add the discord here. We'll probably get an influx of lunatics. Not everybody. I love you guys, you're not a lunatics, but I'm sure some of you guys are lunatics.

So we'll have to vet the lunatics out of here. So get the discord link ready and then I'll open up discord here and we can do a Q and a.

M h.

M hmm.

All right. Gredo are you there? Yes, I am Grado. He's a good friend from Australia.

I'm here to ask ask the questions and getting them.

Tell you yeah.

Here, he's here to do his best Mail Gibson impression. He's doing Meil Gibson, Meil Gibson impassinating Grido.

If I do it Mel Gibson impersonation, they'll shut down the discord and ban you from YouTube.

Okay, Well, in that case, is there anybody who wants to do Q and A. If not, we don't have to. But if there is, is there anybody.

Uh kind of.

Have a few questions?

Okay, j Ashtown, Yes you can ask them.

Okay, Yeah, you were talking about natural law and like something and not really too familiar with the issue. If you could just swing quickly what's wrong exactly with natural.

Raw and what you're like?

The Orthodox position is that that it'd be that would be dandy, all right.

So the easiest best explanation for this is I'm gonna tell you too.

Now.

I've got it linked at my website. There's there's one chapter. It's an essay called uh Knowledge. It's called the Knowledge the Theory of Knowledge of Saint Isaac the Syrian. Okay, and this is an essay that is in this excellent book. I recommend the whole book of Orthodox Faith in Life in Christ by Saint Justin Popovich, because he not only does he critique the papacy and the humanism of the papacy.

But he has a whole.

Chapter called the Theory of Knowledge of Isaac the Syrian, and Isaac the Syrian, who is obviously a saint the Orthodox Church, has the same epistemology as Saint Maximus. So the doctrine is based on the doctrine of the Logi.

And so what he's going to do in this.

Chapter is talk about how as Orthodox we don't have the tonistic doctrine of natural theology because Maximus doesn't teach natural theology. So what we're saying here is not that there's no such thing as nature. It's not that nature doesn't teach us God. It's that nature doesn't teach us generic theism. Nature teaches us Christ. And no one who believes in natural theology believes that nature teaches Jesus because Jesus the Trinity. All that stuff in Tomism is an afterthought.

So what is natural theology?

Natural theology is autonomous man reasoning an in a sphere apart from revelation. According to Fetus at ratio of John Paul the I, it's not based on revelation. It makes no reference to reveal theology. It's man reasoning only from created mental principles about the world.

So we're gonna.

Reason about the external world, causation, te loos, purpose, the beginning of the world, et cetera, how it came to be. And it's all a bunch of nonsense. Why because it starts with the peripatetic axiom that nothing is in the intellect that's not first in the senses. Okay, that no one can defend that position anymore, because at the time of the Enlightenment it gets critiqued into devastation, it gets destroyed.

Now, how can I prove all this very easily?

Can you interpret the world as it is right now without making reference to the fall? Now, if you believe in natural theology, yes, you can derive all these principles about the operation of the natural world merely.

By sense data, without any reference to revelation. So but wait a minute.

When I do that and I look out at the world, I notice there's things like death and decay, predator and prey. Is the predator prey slash death feature of the world natural? Now, most Thomas are probably going to say something like, yes, there's a natural process that occurs in relationship to death.

Now, well, wait a minute, Paul says, death is the enemy.

Death entered because of the fall. So you can't interpret the world as it is right now without the doctrine of revelation, namely that it was created and that the reason that the world is in the state that it is right now is because of the fall. So the predator, prey, death aspect of the world is not natural. Thus, Saint Maximus can say, grace and virtue are the most natural things to man. There's nothing more natural to man than grace.

Yeah?

No, I think I get a little bit of that.

So the very first chapter of Experience of God by stun Eloy, he starts his systematic theology with this what I'm saying for the Orthodox there is no distinction between supernatural grace and nature per se. There is a distinction, but not a distinction the way that the Roman Catholics say it.

We don't believe in natural theology. He says, it's.

More appropriate to call what we believe in natural revelation. And he says, how is that the case?

Where does he go to?

First Maximus? The first thing he appeals to is Maximus and the Logi. Because nature is not an uninterpreted brute fact that comes to you without any theory. Nature is what the Logos created it to be. Therefore, it can only be interpreted and understood according to its logie in Christ. So it's impossible to believe in natural theology. Hence wistan

Thank you, j Sorry, I was gonna make it a question.

How do we define all hard was going to say, Jay, how do we define.

God's omnipotence and orthodoxy so that the ability to cause to find persons is us not held by all the members of the Trinity.

Oh, that's a good question.

Yeah, So somebody might say sometimes Thomas say this, They say.

Every or even I've even heard Muslims make this argument.

They'll say that every person in the Trinity has to have everything in common or one of them would lack. So, for example, if we say that the Father alone is the cause of the Godhead, then somehow the Son and the Spirit would be subordinated because they lack the power of causing. Well, the first thing that we would say is that, if you read the compendotionans, the power of causing is not a it's what we call a hypostatic property.

To the divine nature.

So the power to create the world, the power to show divine justice, divine mercy, divine love, those are all common to the Godhead, and so they're therefore properties or attributes that are natural to God. But hyposthetic properties are different because they're the only properties that we believe as Orthodox from the Cappadocians that distinguish the person's. So, what is the father's unique hypostatic property that makes him alone who he is such that it can't be attributed to

Of the Father.

That's confirmed at the First Ecumenical Council, and the Kappadocian and Athanasian theology is ark an ark a, fount of godhead, unoriginate origin.

Cause. Yeah, I think that's most of them, right.

So those basically sum up who the Father is, and they're all describing the same single hyposthetic reality. They're not different attributes of his person. That is his hyposthetic reality. The Father is the sole origin, the sole cause, the soul, monarchia, the soul ark the soul anarchia, right, all of those properties.

He's autotheos.

He alone is auto theeos okay self caused, self existent, because the son and the Spirit derive their hypostatic existence from the Father. That's why Nicea, the Niceno constant Apolitan creed is a Cappadocian in stating the God from God like from light proposition. That's what all the Cappadocians taught about the monarchia of the Father. So to be cause, to be ourk to be found, to be origin, to be beginning, to be source, to be autotheos, self caused.

That is the Father.

Those are all describing who he is. So he cannot share that with anyone else because they would be father.

Right.

So the son can't share any of those properties because now you have a father son, now you have a diad. So the power so called of being, the fount rk monarchy, et cetera, is the Father's hypostatic property. It's not a property of the Godhead by which one of the other persons lacks, because the Son, by sharing in the divine nature, has all the same powers that the Father has. He's co eternal, he's coequal, he has co dignity, right, he has co rain.

He has co love.

You know, you could say all of the attributes that are common to the Godhead are shared by the Son and the Spirit equally. But as it comes to origin and order, No, the Father is the first, The Father is the felt, The Father is God. When we say God, we mean the person of the Father.

It's a good answer. Does anyone ask any question?

Yeah, I have a question of Yeah.

Are the persons of the Trinity God in.

And of themselves or the God only in.

Relation to the Father? Yes?

All the Kappadocians are absolutely unanimous that the only person whose Autotheos is the Father. So the Son and the Spirit, when they're called co unoriginate, that's in reference to creation. It's when they're contrasted to creatures that the Son is called co unoriginate. He is not called co unoriginate in respect to the Trinity proper. He's always called of the Father. And you'll you can read the orations. Gregor naci Angas is super emphatic about this. He's very clear, Basil is

Father, Son, and Spirit.

All participate in the action of creating the world. So there are there is a couple places where Nazi angers will say, is he uh uh co unoriginate? He says only in contrast to creatures, but in terms of the Trinity proper, he is not co unoriginate, because that would mean he shares the Father's unique property of being the unoriginate origin.

Okay, I have a question, Go ahead, So Jay, you said that. So you said that when referring to God, we are referring to the Father. Correct, So then so then how come? So then how come it is also correct to say that Jesus is God? Though if God is only referring to the Father.

No, I said.

Properly speaking, God refers to the Father, but God also refers to the Son and the Spirit, because the Father communicates the same divine nature to the Son and.

To the Spirit.

So if you read the Creed, what does the creed say? We believe in one God, the Father Almighty.

So the Cappadocians will stress that the beginning of the Godhead and the recapitulation of Godhead relates back to the person of the Father. So the Father not only is the origin, he's also the source of unity. How is he the source of unity because he communicates that single divine nature to the other two?

I see.

So we're not saying that the Trinity isn't God. We're saying that most of the time when we see the phrase we believe in one God, it's referring to the hypostasis of the Father, and we say that because it guards the premiacy of the person a personhood. We don't we don't begin our Trinitarian theology with the essence.

Okay, thank you.

Sure, I would recommend doctor BOE's talk on the monarchia. He's very good on that, and he just restates what the Cave Docians say.

Okay, Christian, I'll just read this one and then we'll get to you. Christian du what do you think of the major milestones in the global reaction to the Roman Catholics slash c I A takeover?

What do I think of the major milestones and what that?

What do you think of the major milestones in the global reaction to the r c C slash c.

I A takeover.

I think the milestones in reaction would be what we've seen in the last several years in relation to the back and forth between the West and Russia. That's the main milestones of reaction. So the expansion of Orthodox Christianity in Russia, the situation in the Ukraine, Montenegro, the Church overthrowing, what happened in Montenegro, those are the major milestones of reaction.

Okay, sir to the question, Now go ahead, This is a two parters, so I'm going to ask I have like two questions related to Protestantism.

Okay, but so yeah, My first question is, how do you respond to the Protestant notion that the church is invisible as opposed to the Orthodox view of a church that is a visible institution.

I would simply say that.

Paul's predominant image of the church is the body. The body of Christ is just as physical and just as flesh as our bodies. When Christ was resurrected, he told Thomas to put your finger in my side to show to Thomas that Jesus wasn't a phantasm. It was the same Jesus who went to the cross, right, So he has the same body, he has the same piercing in his side, and he says, put your finger in my side to show that it's a physical body.

It's the same one.

So in the same way, the Eucharist is physical, actual bread, actual wine, because that's how Jesus instituted it.

And so in the same way, the.

Church is made up of visible, physical bodies of people. So it makes no sense to have this platonic ideal invisible church, because that no longer fulfills the promises in the Old Testament about what the church would be when it comes to be right. You have all these prophecies in the Old Testament that the sign of the coming of the Messianic Age will be when all the gentile nations start to pour into the church. When I go to church history, I can look and see who that

Okay.

So in the second part to that was just a

I see, I think what you're saying so right. We wouldn't say that. So when Jesus was instituting this feast in the Upper Room and setting the pattern for it, he's doing a lot of things that are in accordance with multiple rituals from the Jewish service. Right, So it's not just Passover. It's partly Passover, but it's also related

So there's a communal, covenental meal.

When Moses goes up on the mountain in Exodus, he has a meal with God, this priest. This priest signifies the Eucharist. When Melchizedek gives when Abraham ties to the Kizic, Melchizedic fixes a feast of bread and wine, which presignifies the Eucharist. The point is that there's no way that you could literally have every one of the Jewish ceremonies smushed into one.

So the best way to do it is the way Jesus did it by creating a meal.

Now, if you look in the Book of Acts, when they meet together to have the bread at the first of the week.

They're not all doing a.

Feast, right, There is a love feast that follows the ceremony that Paul mentions in the New Testament. But the liturgy itself doesn't have to be a feast, as if that's somehow essential to the ritual. The other way that we know this is that the Apostles when they went and established the churches, they gave the church an actual liturgy to do. We do the liturgy that's always been done. Read what Ignatius says about the liturgy in the first century.

It's not just the lilogy.

It's also like all the cycles that we do that they also similar to what the Old Testament believers do.

So it's like all of our practice.

Basically, because when I was told about when I when he kind of like came back at me about this, you know, when we were talking about when I talked.

To him about the real presence, he was.

Like, well, I mean, technically, if we're going to be like, if you believe in it, then you should have a feast. And I was kind of like, that's not practical, Like how would you have a feast for everybody? And I did mention the literal nature of the words of Jesus when he was speaking about communion and the blood, blood

Okay, but again I mean yeah, I mean who actually does anybody? Nobody does this.

This is like a in other words, there's it was really weird.

I didn't expect that it's weird.

I don't know.

This sounds like some kind of this sounds like some kind of Hebrew roots kind of thing, like you have to do everything that was done, you know, like in a ceremonial way, or it's invalid or something ridiculous like.

This is it good?

Ahead?

By the way, I would say, there's a couple of books.

If a person wants an introduction to this issue, just read Hugh Wybrew's book The Orthodox Liturgy, because it's about how the eucharistic liturgy developed in the Byzantine right.

It relates back to the synagogue and temple worship.

And then this book Orthodox Worship living continuity with the synagogue temple in early Church.

This is a really good book.

Books or would you say, two different books, one by Hugh weybrew W I. B. R. E. W.

And then a book by Benjamin Williams and Harold Enstall called Orthodox Worship.

Okay uh.

First of all, given ja, I hope you're having a good day.

And my basic question would be along the lines of do you think Americanism? And I guess more generally, the love of America and its ideals would be compatible with strict adherence to Orthodox dogra and the traditions of the Church.

Right, So the Church is not necessarily wedded to any political structure. The Church's favored monarchy. It has the right of coronation, which is a kind of sacramental right of the coronation of kings. But the Church can exist anywhere, even under governments that do not accept that, or you know, preach Americanism or whatever.

So you can be a patriot, you can be.

A fan of your country insofar as your country's principles don't contradict Orthodox teaching.

Right.

This is the same principle behind why the martyrs in the first second third century went to death was that they weren't rejecting the authority of the state inherently, but when Caesar overstepped his bounds and asked them to do things that violated the law of God.

So there's a.

Higher authority that trump's even Caesar. That was the reason why the you know, the martyrs were being put to death is because they wouldn't admit that Caesar decides, you know, ultimately what gods are allowed and arn't. So because you could believe any God you wanted to, as long as you admitted Caesar was also God and had the finals say so. Right, that's why the Christians were put to

Are not in concord with Orthodox theology.

For example, it's not the case that the state should be ideally secular.

That's not true.

Do you think that, and only what this?

Do you think that America was inherently meant to be a secular nation?

Yeah, that's why we started with Thomas Paine. Now that's a little harry because because you could say, oh, but some of the founding fathers believed in theism. Some of them were Episcopalian, some of them were Catholic, one or two were Catholics, some of them were Deists.

So I mean yes and no.

I mean it's like it's like when a when ah, when a Satanist says I believe in a deity, and then I say I believe in a deity and a Muslim says I believe in a deity.

Do we all believe in a deity? Well? Yeah, but does that mean we believe in the same deity?

No?

So is the.

American constitution based on Christian principles or Enlightenment principles both?

It's a it's a mix. So there's not a there's not like an easy way out of this.

Oh yeah, all right, that's pretty much answered my question. Thanks verat timing Ja.

Okay, okay, go ahead, uh quick, Jay you mentioned that Ratsinger denies the.

Bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Do you mind giving me a citation for that?

Yeah, I think it's at the end of Introduction of Christianity.

Let me see Introduction of Christianity.

But h.

I think yes, I think it's the last.

The last chapter, the resurrection the Body, page three forty seven, Introduction of Christianity. A lot of people have made us stink about it. I mean, he's actually got a whole bunch of he's got He's got a whole bunch of modernist statements. It's not like, oh, there's just one.

But of course, oh well, we don't We don't really know what he means. He doesn't really say itself. You're just they're just gonna do the never ending cope of oh, he didn't really mean that. When he says that, he basically did not.

He's like he's he says something like, we can't have this ancient view of it being like an actual body.

We don't know what it is. It's just like this really vague thing about.

So Dostism is tread.

Now, Okay, what role does the British intelligence play in today's geopolitical climate?

And who is in the driving seat.

I think that.

I mean, you can just look at what all has happened in the last six months, eight months to see who's running things. I mean, everything is run right now by the same people that have been running things since. What I'm talking about in these books, it's the same power structure. It's the Anglo elite establishment right that includes US, UK Israel all on the same team, and they are engaged in all the operations that you're seeing, like in

Next question is what is the orthodoxy viewpoint of mortification of the flesh in Catholicism.

Saint Gregory Palamos, we don't believe in mortification. Mortification is a erroneous doctrine of Catholicism that negates the body. Orthodoxy is very pro body because of the resurrection. We stress the resurrection. We don't mortify the flesh. We believe the flesh is deified, so we do practice asceticism, but that's not the same thing as mortifying the flesh. Mortifying the flesh is based on a mistranslation. I think in the Vulgate.

Does act as purists make or attempt to make the Trinity into a monad.

It doesn't attempt to. It attempts to have.

A philosophical definition and explication of what simplicity is and how to do natural theology based on philosophic first principles, but it unfortunately precludes and negates the trinitarian doctrines which necessitate real distinctions in the Trinity, and for example, one hypostasis being able to enter into a motive being that the other two do not, namely, the Son becomes, incarnates and dies, the Father and the Spirit do not. So you need a Trinitarian theology that allows for that and

There's no potential in God.

I mean, it has all these problems that just really don't line up with what's needed to have orthodox trinitarian and crystological teaching.

What's the main what is the major problems you see with using relations of opposition to distinguish members of the Trinity.

Well, first and foremost, they're not the distinctions that are already codified and used and confirmed by the Cappadocians. So Athanacious and the Cappadocians have a very specific, very consistent, clear doctrine of how to explicate and pick out the persons. There's nothing about relations of opposition until Augustine and later

But a relation is a.

Predicate, not a subject, and the persons are subjects, So you can't define a subject by a predicate or a relation.

Right.

Is In a writing I was reading on the Bogamil heresy, the writers stated the Latins were still using the liturgy made by Peter. So could you argue that the Catholics not preserving the liturgy of Peter is evidence in a sense against either papal infallibility or papal supremacy.

By the liturgy made by Peter. Are you talking about the Gregorian liturgy?

Perhaps we could amuse him or wait for him.

To clarify that question, because that is a very interesting cavio.

Yeah, if he wants to, he can just type of question.

I mean, I'm not a historian of the history of the Latin liturgy. I mean, I know about the major reforms, the Gregorian reforms. I know about what happened under different popes, pious and these people would the data DEFECTI boos and all this kind of stuff, So, but I don't know how I mean I guess. I guess some people would say that's the liturgy of Peter. I mean, it's not

Yeah, I guess my question was like someone were related to like did he make a liturgy in the sense, So it was kind of two questions in one.

I don't know that we probably don't know.

So actually there's quite a bit about the first and second century that we don't know. I'm not saying that there aren't scholars who don't have knowledge of this or a theory on this. I'm just saying I don't personally know. I'm not a liturgical scholar. I have some familiarity with some of the stuff with Patristia, but liturgics is kind of its own domain, and I don't know exactly it.

Would probably have to look.

At Ratolian or Hippolitus, and they could probably have insights into how the early Latin liturgy bit would have been done, But I don't actually know.

That's a good question, ok, thank.

You, Okay, next, Ascapsultis had a question if you could have me and ask you a question, go ahead.

Oh yeah.

So in a recent video jay that you had on TAG, you talked about how it's it's necessary for there to be a trinity because otherwise you end up with this situation where God is contingent on creation, right, because otherwise he doesn't he doesn't have a thing to be like God of Right, Am I representing that correctly?

Right?

And so I was just wondering how that exactly works with like the Son and the Holy Spirit, because I get them like the Father as the monarch would be you know, the you know, the monarch of this of the Son of the Holy Spirit. But would this would the Son like be the God of the Father and the Holy Spirit or and like would it worked that way too?

No, No, those kind of terms would be.

Like the Father would still have a premissy in terms of being the cause to unoriginate the fountain the beginning, but we don't import into those terms anything to do with temporal power or supremacy. So the Father in generating a son that is his icon or his direct image, also communicates to him the same divine nature that he possesses. Just as a human father gives birth to a human son. They have the same nature even though they're distinct persons.

Of divine power that he possesses. Right, So there's no lacking in what Jesus has.

So, in other words, it's not like an either or where we're saying that God and Lord only apply to a to a created order. We're saying that The reason that God doesn't require a created order to be lord is because the Father has a son, and the Father and the Son share a communion of love, which is the Spirit in a manifestation sense.

Son.

That the Son and the Holy Spirit would require creation in order to be lord of something.

No, because they that's the point of that. They share that love to one another. So, in other words, the Son returns the love back to the Father simultaneously, the Father loves the Spirit uh and the son.

The Spirit loves the.

Son and the Father, so that communion is shared amongst all three. And so the point is that there is a mutual communion that occurs that doesn't require the property of In other words, we say that God in the sense of being lord or providence or God over something, that's only an attribute that God takes on in relation to creation. So he wasn't providential or creator before he created. We don't believe in an eternal creator. But what I'm saying,

God or Lord.

But God and Lord are or we're saying he's obviously God from all eternity. But sometimes people will say the definition of God is to be a god of creation.

So in that sense we don't say he's God.

If by God you mean God the Father, then yes, he's God, the Father from all eternity, Father of who greater than who greater than the Son, in the sense of being the origin.

Of the Son.

All righty, gotcha makes sense, Thank you so much.

Okay, next question is is there a theological reasoning that led to the entire Orthodox Church adopting the Byzantine right? And then he says, after the Calcidon Schism, the Church of Antioch adopted the Byzantine Rite and abandoned the Syriac right. In the twelfth century, the Georgian Church adopted the Byzantine right and dropped the Armenian tradition, and in the sixteenth century in the Russian Church made their rights conformative to the Greeks, causing the Old believe aschism.

But aside from the just the historical instances, I don't know that there's some overriding decision and to do that, I mean, there's nothing inherently necessarily wrong with the other rights per se. And I think even on Mountain Athos the Liturgy of Saint James is celebrated sometimes right, which is the Alexandrian liturgy. So it's not infallibly the case that that's always, but it's rather that it just becomes more and more normative, and everybody kind of wants to

That's not mine. Forte.

Okay.

The next question is how is it possible that the academic consensus on the works of Saint Dionysius places its true authorship as some pseudonymous writer almost five hundred years later than tradition. It seems that such a huge disparity in dating should be easily resolvable through textual analysis, historical cizations, and so forth. This strikes me as an important issue since it gives ammunition to those claiming the ee distinction.

Okay?

First of all, go read David Bradshaw's book Aristotle East and West, and you will see that the essence introducinction is not predicated on Dionysius and the Divine names. Dionysius and the Divine names does make the essen senterd discinction. The essence inerdiscinction is completely contrary to Neoplatonism. I'm not sure to be rude, but if you understood the essence introducinction, you would know that it's.

Employed to refute Neoplatonism.

I can't stress this enough. I get tired of constantly saying this to the Roman Catholics and to the tomiss When Basil writes about the essence energy distinction, he's arguing against people who have Platonic assumptions of simplicity. The essence energy distinction refutes neoplatonism. Now, is there a similarity between neoplatonism and what's in Dinysius. Yes, I don't think anybody

So I would recommend that essay at.

Orthochristian defense of the dating of Dinasius or something like that on the title of Dinasia or something like that.

But setting that issue aside the other possibility. It also could be the.

Case that, as I was saying to that guy about the liturgy, I don't think people realize that when it comes to these first, second, third, fourth century stuff, there's.

A lot that we don't know.

Okay, manuscripts are being discovered all the time, there's new stuff that comes about, so textual criticism and reconstruction involves a lot of guesswork. I'm not saying that it can't be done. I'm not saying that they're all we've had textual scholars on so I'm not trying to be overly simplistic.

So it's not like it has to be some either or like, well, either there was.

A dude named Dionysius who composed all of that treatise, or maybe there's a redacted one that we have that's from the fourth or fifth century that is based on a smaller corpus.

Of the real dynasties. I mean, we just don't know. So in other words, when you read.

About textual scholarship, I'm not saying you haven't read it. I don't know who you are or what you have or haven't read. I'm just making the point that one thing that you'll notice is that it's a lot of guesswork. Remember when we had doctor James snap On and we were talking about the certain codices that have the giant

Chariot Merkava mysticism, which is true.

So if the origin is not even Plotinus, then it really doesn't matter if there's a later similarity between Plotinian phraseology and imagery and celestial hierarchies or whatever. It doesn't really matter because nobody denies their similarities in understandings of this or that. But if you read the divine names, it's almost all citations from Scripture. Right, So he's talking to philosophers, trying to speak to them in philosophic language.

Of the terms, right. Logos Logi a great example of this. When Saint Maximus.

Utilizes the logi doctrine, which is from Plotinus, he alters it in three significant ways. He makes the logi to be free will actions of God. They're not emanations, they're not determined generations, they're necessary, and he makes them only relate to the created order, and thus God can freely do it, and he makes them personal. He makes them in hypostatic. So is the phrase logi in Plotinus?

Yes?

Is the phrase logi in Maximus?

Yes?

Does that mean that Maximus teaches Plutinian Neoplatonism. No, because he significantly alters it in three key areas that make it no longer Neoplatonic and now Christian because he makes them energies.

Okay, next question is in two parts, quite a long one, so we'll.

Do a first part in the second part.

So in response to Catholics concerning the philio doctrine, why does this son proceeding from the will of the Father necessitate the son as created? If the Father could eternally will the son's.

Existence, Because if you read Athenasius, that's an Aryan argument. Athanasius rejects the Aryan argument that the son is generated by will. He specifically states that he's not generated by will. He's generated directly of the Father's nature and there's no interposition of will. This is what the Arians and then Eunomius argues, is that the son is a work of energy and will.

No, he's not.

He's a direct natural generation of the Father's essence. So it's the father as hypostasis with the divine nature. The divine nature is in hypostatized in the person of the Father, who generates the son of his nature, you see. So it's in hypostatic. Even the generation is in hyposthetic. It's of the Father's nature. So when the son is when the son is generated. It is not by will, because anything that's by will is common to the Godhead. It's

He's God of God, light of light. There's no interposition of will.

And the second part of the question is if the spirit shays the same essence with the Father, and the Spirit is generated from the Father's essence nature. Why wouldn't the criticism that we force mainly that the spirit being a product of the Father's will and sharing the same will as the Father resulting in the spirit.

How can it be a product of will if it shares the same will, It makes no sense. The spirit is a product of the spiration of the Father, not the will of the Father. Because father, son and Spirit share one will. Will is a faculty of nature, not person. So all of this nonsense, and that this is directly from Ludwig Ought in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. He says, the Holy Spirit proceeds by will. No, he doesn't, No more than the Son is generated by will.

Why not?

Because the Father, son, and Spirit have one will. They all share the same will and nobody. But if they all share the same will, then nobody would would affirm that the Holy Spirit wills himself? Right, he doesn't generate or he does process himself. Therefore he cannot proceed by will. It's a fundamental blunder.

Next question is several Western scholars claim Epistles one, three, three John forderies developed by the medieval Church how can we debunk this nonsensical theory.

Well, I can debunk that right away because the Church fathers cite these epistles. So that's ludicrous. I mean, I can give you read any of the major church fathers will include the Catholic epistles in their canon. Their list of the canon Athanasius includes going from Memory the Catholic Epistles, So that's on its face ludicrous that it would be a medieval invention. That's preposterous. You could debunk that in about two minutes with Google.

Yeah.

Next question is for someone looking to convert to Orthodoxy, what's with the schism with Constantinople and Moscow?

Where can I learn about it?

And would it refer on which jurisdiction I joined?

Could you repeat the last part you're looking to convert in?

What he wants to know?

What is the circumstance with the schism with Constantinople in Moscow and where can.

He learn about it?

Well, a lot of what I've talked about in tonight's stuff geopolitically will relate to that, right, So we're not I mean, we're talking about stuff in the fifties and sixties, and tonight's talk but the same issues are what undergird today's problems between Moscow and Constantinople. So the divide there has progressed to a certain point in canonical church discipline where there's a.

Removal of communion.

That's the stage right before formal excommunication. So we would not yet say that everybody in communion with Bartholomew has lost grace, but we are at the stage before the next step would be formal excommunication.

At that point point we would say that you have to leave ep churches and go arch churches.

We don't necessarily say that yet, but you can already see the degradation of the go arch churches in the US. They're pretty bad. Not every one of them, but some of them. So long story short, find the best church around you by visiting all of them and see which one is the most solid.

That's the best solution.

Okay.

Next question is it's a historical question. What would you say to those who seek to undermine the saintly character of Sincerial of Alexandria by accusing him of having something to do with the murder which was carried out by a mob against Hypatia.

Well, I think it's a Catholic.

I saw a Catholic article that debunks this pretty pretty easily. I would just I don't even remember where I found that article. But also there's a book. Just read John mcguckin's book. I think he covers this as well. So yeah, off the top of my head, I don't remember what the solution is. It's getting late. I'm getting kind of tired. So is there any more any more easy ones? Maybe we can we can call it to a closer.

Yeah, there's there's some short ones. If the father and son of different person's with the same essence, like a human father and son, what differentiates is from polytheism?

No, No, the analogy is made between a father and a son, just a show at the level of nature, right, the father gives birth to a son who possesses the same nature. That's all the analogies intended to show. Obviously, humans are two distinct beings. The father and the son are not separate, distinct beings. So I'm not extending the level of analogy beyond just possessing the same nature.

This is one did Saint Justin think the son's beginning was by the will of the father?

What do we make of that.

I think that there's one statement in Justin that people call into question from memory, but I think there's also other statements in Saint Justin where he seems to pretty consistently uphold the eternal generation. But there is a sense in which, for example, we were talking about this the other day in.

The discord with Lewis, you could in a like, if.

There's a term for this type of willing, it's you could call it something like willing by acquiescence. Like if I have a son and he's the direct offering of my nature, I'm also at the same time, in a sense willing him to be right.

So just because I I'm.

I'm agreeing with what happens according to nature, doesn't mean that I am causing it to happen by will.

Does that make sense?

Do you want to go any further?

Uh?

How many more?

Left?

A few?

There's also a couple of super chats Jake.

All right, let's see. So all I see is one super chat from Nico. It says, thank you, Jay, You're welcome, Nico, much appreciated.

Yeah, we have like eight more questions. We can just call it here and everyone write down your questions. Okay, So you don't have to get them and ask another time.

Well yeah, I'll just continue in the discord for the last