Wow... This really reminds me of my ex. She loved the vague "innocent" occult, which she called "witchy stuff". Crystals that charged up in power in the moonlight, symbolic magic trinkets, etc. She had a casual relationship with the spiritual aspect, but it provided no guide to life. Then she turned to the crazy leftoid politics. Edit: Then the following sentence described me. I was an anti-theist since I turned 8 when I realized Santa wasn't real, and the God I grew up with sounded a lot like him, just even more immaterial. I went hyper-leftoid very early, I think because I dropped religion early. After trying on a million ideologies I ended up back where I began default Catholic with an appreciation for broad Christian Orthodoxy, and I take it very seriously, fasting, rituals, prayer, and all.
I learned from several reddit posts over the past ten years two things that are somewhat controversial in terms of american parenting where I live, but I stand by them: 1. Making your kids "clean their plate because it's a waste of food" very often has a hand in those who develop obesity and eating disorders later in life. 2. Telling your kids the American Santa myth very often has a hand in leading them to atheism or agnosticism later in life. It is often harmless, never super beneficial, and occasionally very, very destructive.
this is a common lament. i think it's just a product of people who jump all the way onto a bandwagon. every fundamentalist person i know has been a fundamentalist in at least two or three other things before they lose neuroplasticity and settle on a final identity.
@@EamonBurke lmao hail santa. why on earth would santa claus cause people to become atheistic? is it because you are worried that if they realize a fat man in a red suit doesn't come down their chimney once a year, they would stop believing in your god? hahahahaha. if that's all it takes to bring people to doubt, i'd go ahead and kiss your belief system goodbye.
This was a welcome addition to this channel. Let's not diminish or ignore the differences between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. Let's have clarity with charity.
Sure. It's just tough to hear someone describe the West in incomplete terms. The East and West have the same roots and share the same saints from the first several centuries. We both embrace the sacraments. And one day we will all behold Christ's return. On that day, I'd rather be caught holding out my hand as a brother to the East than explaining why the differences are insurmountable.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ it's just poetic language, beautiful and romantic but without repentence there is no brotherhood in Christ, and true repentence is tough, there is not much people in orthodox church who undergo it, and you want to wait Jesus arival with full pacage of ecclesiastical sins on your head, including comunion which if taken in roman church going to condemn soul even if person doesn't know that being memeber of it is a sin. And yes, it's about orthodox church being judgemental, as true christians always were in relation to sin.
@@DerekJFiedler Playlist: ua-cam.com/video/Xgdvv18Oge0/v-deo.html Uuuu didn't know this existed... it was 2 years ago I see, I wasn't around here that far back yet :D Nice work with the playlist Paul, very neatly organized
Can't wait to watch. But I just had to go ahead and say, that is absolutely my favorite intro song you've had thus far! Thank you for everything you do Jonathan, you have been instrumental in helping my life grow, and I am now getting ready to become a catechumen in the Orthodox Church this Sunday, Glory to God! Thank you so much JP
Was just thinking what Nathan Jacobs was up to. So cool that you two connected. Becoming Truly Human impacted me in a transitional season. Looking forward to his new work coming up.
This is a perfect example of how easy it is to get lost in the weeds and forget the fundamental question, which for me is, how to exist in this world, how to relate to my neighbour, my community, how to be. It's a practical question and no ammount of study can help. Practical questions require practice.
Dr. Nathan Jacob’s (along with this channel) was vital to realizing the Orthodox is the true church. I’ve watched through almost every video I can find of his multiple times. So excited for this! I’ve now gone to 4 weeks of Divine Liturgy and I am ready to become a Catechumen.
Me too! And he is incredibly gracious also. I reached out to him a couple of years ago and he offered to call me up on zoom and we ended up having about a 90-minute discussion! I know that was before he got going big time with the movie stuff and I'm sure he probably wouldn't have the time to do things like that now. His sub stack is also excellent. When people email him with a question he frequently responds with a theological treatise length reply. He started posting those on his sub stack and they are all excellent.
Great convo. One thing I would say is that the understanding that Original Sin entails inherited guilt is predicated on a misreading of St. Augustine by Latin theologians that followed him. St. Augustine uses the Latin term for liability, not culpability, to describe the effect of Adam's sin on us. St. Maximus knew both Greek and Latin and definitely integrated St. Augustine into his understanding.
He put it so well in so few words, I'm very impressed. I've felt for a long time what Nathan is talking about regarding the problems of the Western church's teleology... Never quite could put a finger on why the Eastern church seems to have a lot of good I've found in both Western Christianity, and Eastern traditions (Buddhism/ Hinduism). Hope he comes back soon, he's really is great at explaining such difficult things to put into words.
It’s awesome to hear someone else reflect the idea presented by Pageau, showing they really are linked to a deep tradition that is available to us if we know where to look.
Great conversation and I enjoy hearing Dr Nathan’s perspective. I just want to clarify that to be a “western” Christian and Catholic specifically does not entail adopting this bifurcated view between nature and grace. In fact, many of the most influential Catholic theologians of the past century such as Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, and Joseph Ratzinger leveled a serious assault on this idea. Thank you Jonathan for adding, when your brought up Dante, that there is a “possibility” (as you put it) of a better understanding of the nature-grace idea which is present in the Latin west. Also, I want to say that it is not the Catholic position that grace is a created substance as if it is some mediating reality that God creates between Himself and the creature. Rather, the idea is that the effect of grace is a created effect precisely because it is an effect within the creature. An analogy is that of the Sun illuminating a stained glass window. The Sun on this analogy is God, and hence uncreated. The colorful illuminating effect that the Sun has on the stained glass is an effect that is created by the stained glass having the properties it has and participating in the sunlight. This created effect just is the sanctification and divinization of the creature. So in one sense grace (the sunlight, the immanence of God, the cause) is uncreated, but also (the illumination, the effect) is created. But it’s not like grace is something separate from God that he creates “over there” as it were and then applies to creatures/creation. I’m trying to learn more about this myself, but I believe that is a more accurate representation of the Catholic view. Also does Dr. Nathan think there are accidental properties in God? That was unclear during his criticism of divine simplicity (at least a certain form of divine simplicity). Some of these debates and disagreements between East and West are not as cut and dry or simple as they are often made out to be.
@@DixonCameronS I think you made good points in your comment. What would be constructive in the future is to have an intelligent competent Catholic thinker on as well at the same time, not for a debate so much as just for a discussion to help clarify various positions. I think the more you dig in to these topics such as nature/grace and original sin, the more clear it becomes they are just not as simple as they are often made out to be in more popular level discussions, and there is often a lot of misrepresentation likely coming from both sides.
Yeah, I think the Ressourcement theologians, nouvelle theologie, and Radical Orthodoxy via John Milbank (as well as Rowan Williams) are crucial and encouraging signs for addressing the issues of the historical Western Church Nathan raised and moving toward a partial theological ecumenism with the East. I think Eriugena is a key figure here as well given he's a relatively late Western figure but draws equally on Augustine (especially his best middle period) as well as both Gregorys, Dionysus, and Maximus.
@S L I had similar experience. However, it was mixed. Some catholics teached me that, some other teached me something more similar to eastern. I really think catholics are just lost, I really dont know the catholic position. But one thing I say it is that the general narrative was a deep resentment of earthly things (money, power, etc). Maybe Saint Francis put the church too focused on poverty. Too much that many bishops in Brazil became socialists.
Interesting discussion, thanks. Going back to the Bible seems to mitigate some of the doubts expressed here, but affirm's God's care and loving pursuit of us and commitment to make all things new. Paul's statement about 'doing the things I don't want to do', but alongside Genesis's that the world was made 'very good' - that humanity can never be righteous by itself compared to God's holiness, but needs His help to build His Kingdom here, and that all things will be restored. Both are encapsulated.
“Breaking Bad” seemed to be the first series announcing in the title that it was about moral choices.(The Unforgiven” was a film) We then follow Walter White to learn how choices have consequences. White showed how being a good person, but a rudderless “none”, can have a terrible outcome.
There is no “good” to anyone not religious, as it’s a purely subjective term. The only thing that is good is of God. So when secular/atheist or even new age morally subjective people speak of being or doing “good”, you should instantly dismiss it and not be swayed by it at all. This is a massive epistemic problem plaguing modernity. It’s no surprise why some people are evil as good when you realize this.
This was a very interesting discussion, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I don't think that Eastern and Western Christianity are irreconcilable and personally I see the trinity making itself manifest in the church Orthodox/ Roman/ Protestant. The divine purpose of all three is a necessary part of the ultimate plan for redemption. Personally I think it's folly to try and attempt to try and conceptualise the almighty in something that is as limited as our minds. We can observe divine patterns and act in accordance with those patterns, but it is the sin of Lucifer to pretend that we can begin to comprehend the magnificent glory himself. Which is of course why Christ was so necessary for our understanding of the divine (though that's not all what Christ was and does). Great discussion, I will probably have to listen to it again.
It was really boring until about 16:50 and then I suddenly started finding it very interesting. This guy really is a deep thinker and well researched. God bless.
Jonathan's point about how people criticize Christianity for "application" but all the new spirituality do this almost exclusively. Think of the "law of attraction", tarot readings, crystal energy, everything self help, all the retreats, and how expensive it all is. All of it is driven by "what can I get from this?" as opposed to "how do I serve others and something higher than myself?" But it's all OK because individualism is our baseline approach.
Jonathan, every time I postulate a question in my mind or see a pattern emerge around me, you post a video or one from 3 years ago is suggested that is a conversation centered on that question... 🤔 thanks for what you do.
As an austrian I look with great interest to the developments in Canada. So we have this. But also I watched a video of veterans removing barricades in front of a war memorial and then standing around and praying the lord's prayer? I think: Where there is great dispair, there is also great hope. I'm curious what Jonathan thinks about the situation in Canada, not so much from a mere political perspective, but how he interprets the things going on in a broader sense.
I think the Ressourcement theologians, nouvelle theologie, and Radical Orthodoxy via John Milbank (as well as someone like Rowan Williams who studied the Eastern fathers more) are crucial and encouraging signs for addressing the issues of the historical Western Church that Nathan raised and moving toward a partial theological ecumenism with the East. I think Eriugena is a key figure here as well given he's a relatively late Western figure but draws equally on Augustine (especially his best middle period) as well as both Gregorys, Dionysus, and Maximus.
The Catholic position is NOT that we literally inherit Adam's guilt. The Council of Trent uses the word "guilt" only in an analogical sense. Even the Catholic Catechism says it: "Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants." (CCC §405). What we inherit from Adam is a kind of debt. And you can have a debt without actual guilt. For example, if a father stole something and hid it in his home, and then later he dies and his son inherits the house, well then the son has the duty to give back the stolen object to the rightful owner. In other words, the son has a debt even though he's not guilty of the theft. You could say in a sense that he carries his father's guilt, not in a literal sense, but only in the sense that he carries the consequences of his father's guilty (i.e. the debt, the shame, etc.). Here's a video by an Orthodox who dismantles the conception that Orthodox and Catholics differ so much from each other on this point (see timestamp 28:15) : ua-cam.com/video/N2LITy4KYMk/v-deo.html The Catholic position also recognizes both created AND uncreated grace. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says it: "The crowning point of justification is found in the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is the perfection and the supreme adornment of the justified soul. Adequately considered, the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit consists of a twofold grace, the created accidental grace (gratia creata accidentalis) and the uncreated substantial grace (gratia increata substantialis)." (See here www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm) The difference between Catholics and Orthodoxes on this point is simply that the Catholic Church didn't dogmatize whether the uncreated grace is divine energy distinct from divine essence, or if both essence and energies are one and the same thing. Thomists think they are just the same, while Eastern Catholics and some Scotists tend to think they are distinct. Catholics allow the mystery to remain.
For a long time i've been composing a story in my head and sometimes sharing it with friends or whatnot and only after diving into the symbolism that Jonathan and his guests present am I starting to understand what I've come up with. In my head these were only ideas that I thought were cool. For example, the story focuses on an empire of fire worshippers who have conquered most of their known world. Their capital city is the shape of an inverted triangle, borrowed into the ground in a series of descending tiers with the temple and royal palace located at the bottom. It gets weirder, on the easter border of the empire is a land inhabited by an odd race of humans who only wear clothing and use weapons fashioned from the remains of animals they have personally killed. This leaves them looking rather odd, chimeric even. There is more but my mind is being blown by the realization that I've been moved by forces that I don't understand.
I really loved this convo, yet I really dislike when orthodox who don't understand or can't translate the notion of original sin to their understanding of ancestral sin end up making bad assumptions about what it means. The ancestral sin makes us to have a certain tendency towards evil towards bad deeds, right? in that sense that sin is only potentially there but not actually there, the problem with that notion when contrasted with what happens in reality, is that those bad behaviors those bad tendencies actualize themselves through us either we want it or not, so for example a little kid will lie and will hide to do bad things even though he is not guilty personally when doing so because in a sense he is not fully aware of what he is doing, yet he is still actualizing that bad behavior, that sin anyways, his free will by being tinted with that ancestral sin makes him actualize in the present a sinful behavior, he might not be culpable when sinning yet he is still sinning, that's why we have the notion of original sin and that's why Saint Agustine in his confessions speaks about the many ways in which he sinned as a little kid. And c'mon, necessity of God for deification is something that everybody agrees on, nature by itself can't be deified it's God who makes that happen because he is the creator who can make creation go towards his glory or away from it. "Lord Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on me a sinner" that very prayer undestands that our possition in front of God without him is always a sinful one that's why we call upon his mercy.
Correct understanding is we bear fruits of Original Sin and in that sense we all preserve it We ourselves are not guilty of making And in Catholic and other western sectarian views there is no difference between having the sin and having the effect of sin (that happened to our ancestors) That's guilty of making and guilty of having result of it In the same sense that we decide what our health is vs what health our parents gave to us, it's not our guilt that our parents had bad health decisions, it's our guilt that we born with bad health didn't want to move on to trying having a good one
Agreed. When I was exploring churches, I looked into orthodoxy and I was a little shocked reading the prayers that I did. My cradle orthodox friend gave me some prayers and I also looked into an orthodox prayer book. A lot of prayers would say things like “thank You God for not smiting me in my sleep, for as a sinner that is what I deserve” (I’m paraphrasing here). A lot of “Lord have mercy” prayers. I don’t see anything wrong with these prayers, in fact I love to pray out of my orthodox prayer book (I’m now a catholic). But it just bothers me to see this anti-western bias from orthodox when the things they criticize Catholicism/Protestantism of they also have. Catholics most definitely do not teach total depravity either, which Jacob was hinting at. The very things he was criticizing St Augustine of, I’ve heard many Catholic theologians say of Calvin. It was that Calvin could not reconcile free will with pre-destination. Catholics also believe that human nature is good, but we have the tendency to do evil because of original sin.
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Following your analogy: The bad health inherited is still bad health and we will face the consequences of that bad health even if we don't want it, in that case we are born in a state of bad health and not born in a state of good health, "the judgment" in our bodies will be the same any unhealthy body gets, we will not get a different judgement, our bodies will be accountable for the health we inherited, and we will be able to correct that once we reach an age in which reason can allow us to make those better decisions ourselves, and for that we need the help of God who is the one who inherited and carried the bad health of our ancestors and destroyed that bad health in the cross to bring us back to good health again.
@@AprendeMovimiento Yes correct. And we're not the reason of bad health, and sin is about our decisions, and repentance is recognizing our bad choices and choosing God (correct choices) He made our nature pure again, human nature, but didn't destroy sin as such, he destroyed exactly as you say
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc You say that he made us "pure again" so at some point we were not pure which is what Jacob is saying is incorrect... The Catholic notion is what I am defending and it's all I have been claiming, I am a traditional Catholic, and I find it disturbing when the problem of language and categorization of reality gets in the way of understanding eachother, when we are claiming the same thing using different languages, is like a tower of babel within Christians... Catholic and Orthodox recognize the need for the mercy of God for our salvation and constant conversion towards him, call that sanctification or theosis, non of us would claim that in our prayers if we though that since we are made in the image and likeness of God we are pure, perfect and ordered correctly, ancestral sin or original sin has an enduring effect that actualizes a sinful way of living all the time and to stop that pattern we need God, we need his grace even after being baptized that's why we have confession and the sacraments, to order our disordered behavior caused by the effects of ancestral sin or simply original sin, without God having mercy on us that ancestral sin would carry out its effects fully and judgement will come upon our souls and bodies as such, the fact that somebody can be saved even though he carries the effects of ancestral sin is not because of the merits of that person, but rather due to the mercy of God, if you carry the effects of ancestral sin you must face the consequences of that unless God by his mercy applies the merits of his sacrifice on the cross on you which is ordinarily done by the sacraments and extraordinarily done simply by his merciful love.
indeed, great convo which begs the question of phronema and how disconnection with this larger vision has allowed many Orthodox Christians to believe that digital execution of externals and general acquiescence to the current generalized panic is somehow a moral good. this notion seems to bring Orthodox Christians to the same dead end as western scholasticism described by your guest. thoughts?
Hey JP! Have you ever done a video on the sort of cerulean color blue that represents the uncreated Light, and, also, virginity? Perhaps a research ophthalmologist can explain why this color is symbolic of holiness to our race, Homo sapiens.
Very intrigued by the critique of Augustine. Where would one start in terms of reading the eastern church fathers to see the anthropological/cosmological alternative reading of nature/grace, original sin, etc. discussed in the episode?
Maybe “On the Soul and the Resurrection” by Gregory of Nyssa. And also probably Origen of Alexandria, who is extremely influential for East and West. The “Classics of Western Spirituality” series has a compilation of some of Origen’s writings that I haven’t really dug into but has a great introduction. Those could be some good places to start. To be fair this “alternative reading” is also present in many western thinkers.. And I would still recommend reading Augustine’s Confessions if you haven’t. It’s a beautiful book. Cheers!
I'd like to hear him have a conversation with knowledgeable Catholics, of which there are many. There are many issues with what he said, especially since the E&E distinction was revitalized by Catholics, and was almost completely forgotten in the East, and most importantly that he must not forget that Augustine is considered a Saint in the East, and thus should be respected and not taught as if he is a heretic. For those who want an explanation on why the E&E distinction leads to pantheism and atheism, I highly recommend Dr. Peter Totleben's dissertation which goes over this. He had a conversation with Matt Fradd on Pints with Aquinas about this, and the Thomsitic response (among others).
The essence / energies distinction is fundamental to Orthodox theology.. to say it leads to pantheism and atheism is wrong, and to say that it was "almost completely forgotten in the east" is wildly wrong.
@@meanjoehix4534 Not according to historians who've studied it. You can take it up with Fr. Totleban, and his dissertation, but I don't think you're actually correct. Readers can do the primary research, as I've pointed them to it. As for it leading to pantheism? There have been numerous people who held to the distinction who realized that once you divorce God's essence from creation through the means of uncreated Energy, you now no longer need God's Essence, because it plays no role in the Universe. As such one can dispense with it entirely. There are projects in Orthodoxy to solve the problem, but it is a major problem, and one that has caused people to become Pantheists. Contrast that with the Thomistic position, which states that God is Being Itself (or Esse, or Pure Act). In such a world, God holes everything in Existence, personally, by His Essence. And thus you cannot divorce creation from His Essence, and thus what Jonathan said about God being the reason anything exists is exactly the Thomistic position, but not the Palamite one, as the Palamite one says it is due to God's _Energies_ that things exist. Hope this clarifies.
@@VACatholic If the act of creating the world is directly identified with God's essence, and if according to the thomistic understanding that his essence is "absolutely simple", wouldnt that logically lead you to believe that creation is eternal?
Also, a great analogy that helped me understand the essence/energies distiction (and theosis) is this: imagine God is a fire, and you are a pole of iron that is then put in that fire. At first the iron is black and grey and cold, but as it is left in the fire, the energies of the fire heat it up and make it start to glow, and eventually it can start glowing with the same energies of the fire, being transformed to be like the fire while still maintaining its distinct 'iron essence', and the fire maintaining its distinct 'fire essence'. The iron doesnt become identified with the essence of the fire, but is transformed by the fires energies, which radiate out of its essence.
In regards to your interview with Mikhaila Peterson. Dr. Ortlund expressed in a really charitable way some things I also think you missed Johnathan, it might be great for you guys to have a conversation, along with Dr. Jordan Cooper. My Church Advice for Mikhaila Peterson - UA-cam
Great stuff - *Can anyone suggest a good book that I can study the Eastern Theologians and learn the differences between East and West?* I realise I am steeped in Western Theology but it seems my heart identifies more along the lines of Eastern Orthodox. Thanks ✝
35:00 How do you approach that with someone who isn’t looking for alternative ways of talking about religion and even sees that as moving the goalposts? I personally had a very materialist frame I viewed things through unconsciously and for a while I wasn’t even willing to consider an alternative way of understanding things. I was pretty skeptical of any “alternative”. But I still haven’t figured out how I’ve come to see things in a more “ancient” way of understanding being so skeptical previously
Thinking about it a bit more, some people think this is a language game. It is a rediscovery of more historic ways of understanding what things meant (‘cult’ for example), but again, how you could talk to a skeptic about that and get them to go along with that I’m not sure.
If Dr. Jacobs wrote a book about the theological and philosophical differences between East and West I would buy it on the spot. Unfortunately, since this book doesn’t exist, and I am saddened. Does anyone here have any suggestions for material to learn about this? I’m new to the Eastern Church and know next to nothing about its tenets.
But there are other books for the basic tenets even though I found you really can’t get to know Orthodoxy without jumping in a very deep well, so it’s okay to take your time.
For anyone who wants to hear a Catholic understanding for Leibniz, I recommend checking out "Philosophy for the People", who deep dive into him, and have Q&As where they've addressed this.
Yes! I’ve seen you over on that channel. Pat and Jim do a great job and made me realize Leibniz is much more complicated than may be popularly understood
@@Durziage Yes. It's very unfortunate that Ven. Fulton Sheen's quote is as true today as when he spoke it. “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
I was extremely excited to watch this, but the first few minutes of what I can only describe as self-aggrandizement and inflation of the ego was very cringe inducing and completely eliminated the desire to watch the rest. I mean, I’m watching it anyway and I feel like it’s a fabulous interview with a very intelligent man: But boy I could have done without the first couple of minutes. 😕
Speaking of spirituality in alternate realities - you should really discover Warhammer 40k universe. It's probably the most intricate and richest universe second only to Tolkien. And set aside heavy stress on technology and corruption reflections the driving force in that universe is religion. Boy I bet there will a tremendous influx of views and subs if you elaborate on 40k universe
The crazy think about the observation of the super Scientism type believing in Ghosts shows that with their Scientism they have been made hopelessly superstitious
I believe in ghost. Only bc I saw one when I was 13. I know what I saw. It wasn't a glimpse in the corner of my eye . It was a full manifestation right in front of me of a little girl. Scared me to death .I cried out to God to help me .I wish now I would have talked to her to see what she wanted .
I like Nathan jacobs and Pageau both, but that section around the 40 minute mark about Augustine just reeks of “I didn’t like it so it can’t be true”. Original sin- Biblical It’s got some major Augustine in the formulation but it’s clear biblical language. And the complaint is “it doesn’t line up with my moral intuition”? Oof
Disappointing strawmaning of Augustine. He calls himself a professor, but he lumps all the theology of the last 16 centuries into a voodoo doll to poke. Plus he is so self-centered, that it is appaling to hear him. Dear Mr. Pageau, don’t bend to be a soapbox for types like these!
His portrayal of original sin in the west is Calvinistic not catholic. The fathers before the great divided are the Church Fathers not the Eastern fathers alone. Augustinian theology isn’t the sum of Catholic theology. The notion of the goodness of creation and humanity created in the image of God reflecting his goodness, if not perfectly, is catholic. Nevertheless what he has to say apart from his parody of catholic teaching is great a welcome.
1:09:29 What Jonathan says here is exactly the position of Thomism. It's completely unclear how he can mean that under the E&E distinction (or maintain the Trinity, or explain how the Energies differ from the Essence, or really anything about it in a deep way). However it's perfectly clear, if one looks at Aquinas's argument in De Ente et Essentia (highly recommend Dr. Gaven Kerr's explication of this on "Philosophy for the People").
The world created by God is good., says Genesis. Upon reading this, in the Septuagint, no wonder the pagan Greek philosophers rushed to get circumcised. But the poor Jews weren’t ready for them to sign up.
@@candaniel2 Films replaced sermons. The 'cathedral' in the culture war refers to the whole leftist establishment that is replacing religion to become its own religion of woke.
@@candaniel2 I was referring to many people working separately on something that eventually becomes one thing - the cathedral or the film. Similar to N T Wright’s beautiful point about the stonemason not sure why his work mattered until he saw his piece in the context of a cathedral front.
i don't see the dissillusionment with the things like magic. anyway, "occult" isn't actually a category. it means "hidden." i think if your diving into the occult is in the spirit of desperately searching for meaning, drowning and thrashing in an ocean of nihilism, then you are going to crave totalitarian certainty. the "occult" is a watery thing.. it's a deep dive. if you are drowning in a sea of possibilities, embracing the hidden nature of things is not going to help you, because you seek concreteness. you seek earth, certainty, community, epistemic solidness. however, if the reason you get into magic (symbolism) is to understand the universe, then the search can provide some sort of sustaining meaning. i think a lot of people jump from "atheism" to "the occult" to "leftism" because they are actually jumping from nihilism, to seeking, to a totalitarian sense of certainty. this pattern could just as easily replace leftism with some sort of orthodox christianity. in short, people who crave certainty at the expense of information will travel from nihilism, to seeking hidden things, to orthodoxy.. but seeking certainty at the expense of information is unwise.
@@TheFeralcatz somewhat crass and unhelpful methinks ...... you can't repent from a preference... repentance is turning to God......bring yourself to God, in your entirety and He will show you what is really you and what can be chipped away... come to God as we all do, as a sinner, labels beyond that are unnecessary.
No Paraclete is inside Jesus, only the Father is inside Jesus to help Him. This means that the HOLY SPIRIT INSIDE JESUS IS THE FATHER - who is a spirit ("God is a spirit")- and that NO THIRD DIVINE PERSON EXISTS, (the Paraclete is not the Holy Spirit). Further, Jesus is helped when going into the desert, this means JESUS IS NOT OMNIPOTENT. Jesus cannot be "temporarily" not omnipotent just during his life on earth because Jesus is God and according to the Trinity doctrine God does not change. Thus, the Trinity doctrine is false because A. no third divine person exists and B. Jesus is God but He is NOT omnipotent.
Metaphysics is just a concept of man. To mold your theology and understanding behind such fringe theoretical ideas does not show evidence of someone rooted Truth. This guy constantly appeals to authority instead of God's word.
Wouldn't god be the sinner since he is the creator? It seems backwards to say that humans are sinful when their nature isn't their choice. If someone is all mighty he would also be responsible for everything. All the evil in the world.
@@kulturkriget no. In everyday life we stop ascribing responsibility when someone else's will enters the causal chain. If the joker shot batman's parents then he caused it. But if a gang member shot another one and the joker cleverly reflected that bullet to hit thomas wayne it's still the joker. You wouldn't blame the person firing the gun in the second case.
You misunderstand what is meant by true human nature. It isnt exactly you are, it is what you are called to be. Like platonic forms. That framework should resolve your other problem too, since you seem to have merged 2 ideas together there.
@@bruceknee1916 I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I am talking about a being that is in total control and set up all parametrars from the very beginning. That decides a persons character through nature and nurture. I wouldn't blame the Joker or the gang member, I would blame the director or screenwriter that made the decision before the movie was even filmed.
Wow... This really reminds me of my ex. She loved the vague "innocent" occult, which she called "witchy stuff". Crystals that charged up in power in the moonlight, symbolic magic trinkets, etc. She had a casual relationship with the spiritual aspect, but it provided no guide to life. Then she turned to the crazy leftoid politics.
Edit:
Then the following sentence described me. I was an anti-theist since I turned 8 when I realized Santa wasn't real, and the God I grew up with sounded a lot like him, just even more immaterial. I went hyper-leftoid very early, I think because I dropped religion early. After trying on a million ideologies I ended up back where I began default Catholic with an appreciation for broad Christian Orthodoxy, and I take it very seriously, fasting, rituals, prayer, and all.
I learned from several reddit posts over the past ten years two things that are somewhat controversial in terms of american parenting where I live, but I stand by them:
1. Making your kids "clean their plate because it's a waste of food" very often has a hand in those who develop obesity and eating disorders later in life.
2. Telling your kids the American Santa myth very often has a hand in leading them to atheism or agnosticism later in life. It is often harmless, never super beneficial, and occasionally very, very destructive.
this is a common lament. i think it's just a product of people who jump all the way onto a bandwagon. every fundamentalist person i know has been a fundamentalist in at least two or three other things before they lose neuroplasticity and settle on a final identity.
@@EamonBurke lmao hail santa. why on earth would santa claus cause people to become atheistic? is it because you are worried that if they realize a fat man in a red suit doesn't come down their chimney once a year, they would stop believing in your god? hahahahaha. if that's all it takes to bring people to doubt, i'd go ahead and kiss your belief system goodbye.
This was a welcome addition to this channel. Let's not diminish or ignore the differences between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. Let's have clarity with charity.
Sure. It's just tough to hear someone describe the West in incomplete terms. The East and West have the same roots and share the same saints from the first several centuries. We both embrace the sacraments. And one day we will all behold Christ's return. On that day, I'd rather be caught holding out my hand as a brother to the East than explaining why the differences are insurmountable.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ it's just poetic language, beautiful and romantic but without repentence there is no brotherhood in Christ, and true repentence is tough, there is not much people in orthodox church who undergo it, and you want to wait Jesus arival with full pacage of ecclesiastical sins on your head, including comunion which if taken in roman church going to condemn soul even if person doesn't know that being memeber of it is a sin.
And yes, it's about orthodox church being judgemental, as true christians always were in relation to sin.
@@JIMMYUNKNOWN word
Heard "i was a none" as "i was a nun" and was profoundly confused for 2 seconds
😄😄 Me too. I was thinking, atheist nuns? What a sad life that would be...
Terrific!
Love your analysis of Jacob's work. Thanks, Paul.
@@DerekJFiedler Playlist:
ua-cam.com/video/Xgdvv18Oge0/v-deo.html
Uuuu didn't know this existed... it was 2 years ago I see, I wasn't around here that far back yet :D
Nice work with the playlist Paul, very neatly organized
Can't wait to watch. But I just had to go ahead and say, that is absolutely my favorite intro song you've had thus far! Thank you for everything you do Jonathan, you have been instrumental in helping my life grow, and I am now getting ready to become a catechumen in the Orthodox Church this Sunday, Glory to God! Thank you so much JP
Was just thinking what Nathan Jacobs was up to. So cool that you two connected. Becoming Truly Human impacted me in a transitional season. Looking forward to his new work coming up.
I very much enjoyed this. It was way too short. Very helpful.
This is a perfect example of how easy it is to get lost in the weeds and forget the fundamental question, which for me is, how to exist in this world, how to relate to my neighbour, my community, how to be. It's a practical question and no ammount of study can help. Practical questions require practice.
What a great conversation and there is chemistry between those two.
As someone who doesn't fit, this was a really fitting conversation, thank you both!
Love Dr. Jacobs. Looking forward to more, Lord willing.
A great conversation. I enjoy Dr. Jacobs and having you both in conversation is even better. Would love to hear more with the two of you.
Dr. Nathan Jacob’s (along with this channel) was vital to realizing the Orthodox is the true church. I’ve watched through almost every video I can find of his multiple times. So excited for this! I’ve now gone to 4 weeks of Divine Liturgy and I am ready to become a Catechumen.
You should check out Jay Dyer (and co) and Orthodox Ethos (or Fr. Peter (Heers) in general) UA-cam channels
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc thank you, I’ve watched lots from both of them.
@@jordanatwell29 Brother Augustine too if you haven't checked him out yet. Also the Royal Path podcast with Fr. Turbo Qualls.
Me too! And he is incredibly gracious also. I reached out to him a couple of years ago and he offered to call me up on zoom and we ended up having about a 90-minute discussion! I know that was before he got going big time with the movie stuff and I'm sure he probably wouldn't have the time to do things like that now. His sub stack is also excellent. When people email him with a question he frequently responds with a theological treatise length reply. He started posting those on his sub stack and they are all excellent.
Great convo. One thing I would say is that the understanding that Original Sin entails inherited guilt is predicated on a misreading of St. Augustine by Latin theologians that followed him. St. Augustine uses the Latin term for liability, not culpability, to describe the effect of Adam's sin on us. St. Maximus knew both Greek and Latin and definitely integrated St. Augustine into his understanding.
I think Dr. Jacobs would agree, see 41:11. He doesn’t ascribe the theology of original sin to Augustine, but to those who followed him.
Thanks
That was a fantastic summary of eastern Christianity and it’s remedies for the issues felt in the west.
He put it so well in so few words, I'm very impressed. I've felt for a long time what Nathan is talking about regarding the problems of the Western church's teleology...
Never quite could put a finger on why the Eastern church seems to have a lot of good I've found in both Western Christianity, and Eastern traditions (Buddhism/ Hinduism).
Hope he comes back soon, he's really is great at explaining such difficult things to put into words.
As Jordan Peterson was a gateway to Christianity, Jonathan is a gateway to the Eastern church's world of art & philosophy. I'm all for it
It’s awesome to hear someone else reflect the idea presented by Pageau, showing they really are linked to a deep tradition that is available to us if we know where to look.
Excited for this one!
Loved this density
I came for the mustache, stayed for the content.
Great conversation and I enjoy hearing Dr Nathan’s perspective. I just want to clarify that to be a “western” Christian and Catholic specifically does not entail adopting this bifurcated view between nature and grace. In fact, many of the most influential Catholic theologians of the past century such as Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, and Joseph Ratzinger leveled a serious assault on this idea. Thank you Jonathan for adding, when your brought up Dante, that there is a “possibility” (as you put it) of a better understanding of the nature-grace idea which is present in the Latin west.
Also, I want to say that it is not the Catholic position that grace is a created substance as if it is some mediating reality that God creates between Himself and the creature. Rather, the idea is that the effect of grace is a created effect precisely because it is an effect within the creature. An analogy is that of the Sun illuminating a stained glass window. The Sun on this analogy is God, and hence uncreated. The colorful illuminating effect that the Sun has on the stained glass is an effect that is created by the stained glass having the properties it has and participating in the sunlight. This created effect just is the sanctification and divinization of the creature. So in one sense grace (the sunlight, the immanence of God, the cause) is uncreated, but also (the illumination, the effect) is created. But it’s not like grace is something separate from God that he creates “over there” as it were and then applies to creatures/creation. I’m trying to learn more about this myself, but I believe that is a more accurate representation of the Catholic view.
Also does Dr. Nathan think there are accidental properties in God? That was unclear during his criticism of divine simplicity (at least a certain form of divine simplicity).
Some of these debates and disagreements between East and West are not as cut and dry or simple as they are often made out to be.
@@DixonCameronS I think you made good points in your comment. What would be constructive in the future is to have an intelligent competent Catholic thinker on as well at the same time, not for a debate so much as just for a discussion to help clarify various positions. I think the more you dig in to these topics such as nature/grace and original sin, the more clear it becomes they are just not as simple as they are often made out to be in more popular level discussions, and there is often a lot of misrepresentation likely coming from both sides.
His description of the Catholic position felt much more like reading Calvinism back into Augustine.
Yeah, I think the Ressourcement theologians, nouvelle theologie, and Radical Orthodoxy via John Milbank (as well as Rowan Williams) are crucial and encouraging signs for addressing the issues of the historical Western Church Nathan raised and moving toward a partial theological ecumenism with the East. I think Eriugena is a key figure here as well given he's a relatively late Western figure but draws equally on Augustine (especially his best middle period) as well as both Gregorys, Dionysus, and Maximus.
@S L I had similar experience. However, it was mixed. Some catholics teached me that, some other teached me something more similar to eastern. I really think catholics are just lost, I really dont know the catholic position. But one thing I say it is that the general narrative was a deep resentment of earthly things (money, power, etc). Maybe Saint Francis put the church too focused on poverty. Too much that many bishops in Brazil became socialists.
Interesting discussion, thanks. Going back to the Bible seems to mitigate some of the doubts expressed here, but affirm's God's care and loving pursuit of us and commitment to make all things new. Paul's statement about 'doing the things I don't want to do', but alongside Genesis's that the world was made 'very good' - that humanity can never be righteous by itself compared to God's holiness, but needs His help to build His Kingdom here, and that all things will be restored. Both are encapsulated.
“Breaking Bad” seemed to be the first series announcing in the title that it was about moral choices.(The Unforgiven” was a film) We then follow Walter White to learn how choices have consequences. White showed how being a good person, but a rudderless “none”, can have a terrible outcome.
There is no “good” to anyone not religious, as it’s a purely subjective term. The only thing that is good is of God. So when secular/atheist or even new age morally subjective people speak of being or doing “good”, you should instantly dismiss it and not be swayed by it at all. This is a massive epistemic problem plaguing modernity. It’s no surprise why some people are evil as good when you realize this.
Wow, this has a lot of material to think about. One to come back to!
Thank you Jonathan for great videos
This was a really good discussion, I’ve learned a lot. 👍🏽
This was a very interesting discussion, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I don't think that Eastern and Western Christianity are irreconcilable and personally I see the trinity making itself manifest in the church Orthodox/ Roman/ Protestant. The divine purpose of all three is a necessary part of the ultimate plan for redemption.
Personally I think it's folly to try and attempt to try and conceptualise the almighty in something that is as limited as our minds. We can observe divine patterns and act in accordance with those patterns, but it is the sin of Lucifer to pretend that we can begin to comprehend the magnificent glory himself. Which is of course why Christ was so necessary for our understanding of the divine (though that's not all what Christ was and does).
Great discussion, I will probably have to listen to it again.
No that my friend is awesome
I could’ve listened for another two hours lol, this was excellent
It was really boring until about 16:50 and then I suddenly started finding it very interesting. This guy really is a deep thinker and well researched. God bless.
Lol thanks for the time stamp
@@cthulhupoe No problem bro
This conversation fits me well.
Jonathan's point about how people criticize Christianity for "application" but all the new spirituality do this almost exclusively. Think of the "law of attraction", tarot readings, crystal energy, everything self help, all the retreats, and how expensive it all is. All of it is driven by "what can I get from this?" as opposed to "how do I serve others and something higher than myself?" But it's all OK because individualism is our baseline approach.
Jonathan, every time I postulate a question in my mind or see a pattern emerge around me, you post a video or one from 3 years ago is suggested that is a conversation centered on that question... 🤔 thanks for what you do.
Fascinating character
Although there’s always some chaff in the mix, the wheat is much much appreciated! Thanks guys
YES!
As an austrian I look with great interest to the developments in Canada. So we have this. But also I watched a video of veterans removing barricades in front of a war memorial and then standing around and praying the lord's prayer?
I think: Where there is great dispair, there is also great hope.
I'm curious what Jonathan thinks about the situation in Canada, not so much from a mere political perspective, but how he interprets the things going on in a broader sense.
Fascinating
Dr Nathan Jacobs would make a really cool podcast if he had the time/desire
I think the Ressourcement theologians, nouvelle theologie, and Radical Orthodoxy via John Milbank (as well as someone like Rowan Williams who studied the Eastern fathers more) are crucial and encouraging signs for addressing the issues of the historical Western Church that Nathan raised and moving toward a partial theological ecumenism with the East. I think Eriugena is a key figure here as well given he's a relatively late Western figure but draws equally on Augustine (especially his best middle period) as well as both Gregorys, Dionysus, and Maximus.
Beautiful intro music
Here's a longer version of him telling his story. ua-cam.com/video/zNJe9-JdJRs/v-deo.html
Going on the list
Society has a God sized hole in its heart & absent a narrative where God is present we will seek to fill that hole w/ all kinds if things
Oh heck yeah. Dr Jacobs is the MAN.
The Catholic position is NOT that we literally inherit Adam's guilt. The Council of Trent uses the word "guilt" only in an analogical sense. Even the Catholic Catechism says it: "Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants." (CCC §405).
What we inherit from Adam is a kind of debt. And you can have a debt without actual guilt. For example, if a father stole something and hid it in his home, and then later he dies and his son inherits the house, well then the son has the duty to give back the stolen object to the rightful owner. In other words, the son has a debt even though he's not guilty of the theft. You could say in a sense that he carries his father's guilt, not in a literal sense, but only in the sense that he carries the consequences of his father's guilty (i.e. the debt, the shame, etc.). Here's a video by an Orthodox who dismantles the conception that Orthodox and Catholics differ so much from each other on this point (see timestamp 28:15) : ua-cam.com/video/N2LITy4KYMk/v-deo.html
The Catholic position also recognizes both created AND uncreated grace. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says it: "The crowning point of justification is found in the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is the perfection and the supreme adornment of the justified soul. Adequately considered, the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit consists of a twofold grace, the created accidental grace (gratia creata accidentalis) and the uncreated substantial grace (gratia increata substantialis)." (See here www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm)
The difference between Catholics and Orthodoxes on this point is simply that the Catholic Church didn't dogmatize whether the uncreated grace is divine energy distinct from divine essence, or if both essence and energies are one and the same thing. Thomists think they are just the same, while Eastern Catholics and some Scotists tend to think they are distinct. Catholics allow the mystery to remain.
What he said
That intro though😯😯😍😍
Was wondering when this was going to happen. 😊
It’s called Love !
Here was our second conversation where we went deeper into storytelling. ua-cam.com/video/-YLJb6p0nZA/v-deo.html
A great convo. Thank you, Paul.
You really outdid yourself on this video with your pertinent comments... Much appreciated
For a long time i've been composing a story in my head and sometimes sharing it with friends or whatnot and only after diving into the symbolism that Jonathan and his guests present am I starting to understand what I've come up with. In my head these were only ideas that I thought were cool. For example, the story focuses on an empire of fire worshippers who have conquered most of their known world. Their capital city is the shape of an inverted triangle, borrowed into the ground in a series of descending tiers with the temple and royal palace located at the bottom. It gets weirder, on the easter border of the empire is a land inhabited by an odd race of humans who only wear clothing and use weapons fashioned from the remains of animals they have personally killed. This leaves them looking rather odd, chimeric even. There is more but my mind is being blown by the realization that I've been moved by forces that I don't understand.
Great, another one I will have to listen to at least twice 😂
I really loved this convo, yet I really dislike when orthodox who don't understand or can't translate the notion of original sin to their understanding of ancestral sin end up making bad assumptions about what it means.
The ancestral sin makes us to have a certain tendency towards evil towards bad deeds, right? in that sense that sin is only potentially there but not actually there, the problem with that notion when contrasted with what happens in reality, is that those bad behaviors those bad tendencies actualize themselves through us either we want it or not, so for example a little kid will lie and will hide to do bad things even though he is not guilty personally when doing so because in a sense he is not fully aware of what he is doing, yet he is still actualizing that bad behavior, that sin anyways, his free will by being tinted with that ancestral sin makes him actualize in the present a sinful behavior, he might not be culpable when sinning yet he is still sinning, that's why we have the notion of original sin and that's why Saint Agustine in his confessions speaks about the many ways in which he sinned as a little kid.
And c'mon, necessity of God for deification is something that everybody agrees on, nature by itself can't be deified it's God who makes that happen because he is the creator who can make creation go towards his glory or away from it. "Lord Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on me a sinner" that very prayer undestands that our possition in front of God without him is always a sinful one that's why we call upon his mercy.
Correct understanding is we bear fruits of Original Sin and in that sense we all preserve it
We ourselves are not guilty of making
And in Catholic and other western sectarian views there is no difference between having the sin and having the effect of sin (that happened to our ancestors)
That's guilty of making and guilty of having result of it
In the same sense that we decide what our health is vs what health our parents gave to us, it's not our guilt that our parents had bad health decisions, it's our guilt that we born with bad health didn't want to move on to trying having a good one
Agreed. When I was exploring churches, I looked into orthodoxy and I was a little shocked reading the prayers that I did. My cradle orthodox friend gave me some prayers and I also looked into an orthodox prayer book. A lot of prayers would say things like “thank You God for not smiting me in my sleep, for as a sinner that is what I deserve” (I’m paraphrasing here). A lot of “Lord have mercy” prayers. I don’t see anything wrong with these prayers, in fact I love to pray out of my orthodox prayer book (I’m now a catholic). But it just bothers me to see this anti-western bias from orthodox when the things they criticize Catholicism/Protestantism of they also have. Catholics most definitely do not teach total depravity either, which Jacob was hinting at. The very things he was criticizing St Augustine of, I’ve heard many Catholic theologians say of Calvin. It was that Calvin could not reconcile free will with pre-destination. Catholics also believe that human nature is good, but we have the tendency to do evil because of original sin.
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Following your analogy: The bad health inherited is still bad health and we will face the consequences of that bad health even if we don't want it, in that case we are born in a state of bad health and not born in a state of good health, "the judgment" in our bodies will be the same any unhealthy body gets, we will not get a different judgement, our bodies will be accountable for the health we inherited, and we will be able to correct that once we reach an age in which reason can allow us to make those better decisions ourselves, and for that we need the help of God who is the one who inherited and carried the bad health of our ancestors and destroyed that bad health in the cross to bring us back to good health again.
@@AprendeMovimiento Yes correct. And we're not the reason of bad health, and sin is about our decisions, and repentance is recognizing our bad choices and choosing God (correct choices)
He made our nature pure again, human nature, but didn't destroy sin as such, he destroyed exactly as you say
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc You say that he made us "pure again" so at some point we were not pure which is what Jacob is saying is incorrect... The Catholic notion is what I am defending and it's all I have been claiming, I am a traditional Catholic, and I find it disturbing when the problem of language and categorization of reality gets in the way of understanding eachother, when we are claiming the same thing using different languages, is like a tower of babel within Christians... Catholic and Orthodox recognize the need for the mercy of God for our salvation and constant conversion towards him, call that sanctification or theosis, non of us would claim that in our prayers if we though that since we are made in the image and likeness of God we are pure, perfect and ordered correctly, ancestral sin or original sin has an enduring effect that actualizes a sinful way of living all the time and to stop that pattern we need God, we need his grace even after being baptized that's why we have confession and the sacraments, to order our disordered behavior caused by the effects of ancestral sin or simply original sin, without God having mercy on us that ancestral sin would carry out its effects fully and judgement will come upon our souls and bodies as such, the fact that somebody can be saved even though he carries the effects of ancestral sin is not because of the merits of that person, but rather due to the mercy of God, if you carry the effects of ancestral sin you must face the consequences of that unless God by his mercy applies the merits of his sacrifice on the cross on you which is ordinarily done by the sacraments and extraordinarily done simply by his merciful love.
Love the intro! Sounds like a led zeppelin intro
Yeah I was thinking it sounded like an altered version of stairway to Heaven
@@genesiskeglar6372 yes, i started singing "and she's finding a stairway...to heeeaavvennn"
indeed, great convo which begs the question of phronema and how disconnection with this larger vision has allowed many Orthodox Christians to believe that digital execution of externals and general acquiescence to the current generalized panic is somehow a moral good. this notion seems to bring Orthodox Christians to the same dead end as western scholasticism described by your guest. thoughts?
Hey JP! Have you ever done a video on the sort of cerulean color blue that represents the uncreated Light, and, also, virginity? Perhaps a research ophthalmologist can explain why this color is symbolic of holiness to our race, Homo sapiens.
Very intrigued by the critique of Augustine. Where would one start in terms of reading the eastern church fathers to see the anthropological/cosmological alternative reading of nature/grace, original sin, etc. discussed in the episode?
Maybe “On the Soul and the Resurrection” by Gregory of Nyssa. And also probably Origen of Alexandria, who is extremely influential for East and West. The “Classics of Western Spirituality” series has a compilation of some of Origen’s writings that I haven’t really dug into but has a great introduction. Those could be some good places to start.
To be fair this “alternative reading” is also present in many western thinkers.. And I would still recommend reading Augustine’s Confessions if you haven’t. It’s a beautiful book. Cheers!
I'd like to hear him have a conversation with knowledgeable Catholics, of which there are many. There are many issues with what he said, especially since the E&E distinction was revitalized by Catholics, and was almost completely forgotten in the East, and most importantly that he must not forget that Augustine is considered a Saint in the East, and thus should be respected and not taught as if he is a heretic.
For those who want an explanation on why the E&E distinction leads to pantheism and atheism, I highly recommend Dr. Peter Totleben's dissertation which goes over this. He had a conversation with Matt Fradd on Pints with Aquinas about this, and the Thomsitic response (among others).
The essence / energies distinction is fundamental to Orthodox theology.. to say it leads to pantheism and atheism is wrong, and to say that it was "almost completely forgotten in the east" is wildly wrong.
@@meanjoehix4534 Not according to historians who've studied it. You can take it up with Fr. Totleban, and his dissertation, but I don't think you're actually correct. Readers can do the primary research, as I've pointed them to it.
As for it leading to pantheism? There have been numerous people who held to the distinction who realized that once you divorce God's essence from creation through the means of uncreated Energy, you now no longer need God's Essence, because it plays no role in the Universe. As such one can dispense with it entirely. There are projects in Orthodoxy to solve the problem, but it is a major problem, and one that has caused people to become Pantheists.
Contrast that with the Thomistic position, which states that God is Being Itself (or Esse, or Pure Act). In such a world, God holes everything in Existence, personally, by His Essence. And thus you cannot divorce creation from His Essence, and thus what Jonathan said about God being the reason anything exists is exactly the Thomistic position, but not the Palamite one, as the Palamite one says it is due to God's _Energies_ that things exist.
Hope this clarifies.
@@VACatholic If the act of creating the world is directly identified with God's essence, and if according to the thomistic understanding that his essence is "absolutely simple", wouldnt that logically lead you to believe that creation is eternal?
Also, a great analogy that helped me understand the essence/energies distiction (and theosis) is this: imagine God is a fire, and you are a pole of iron that is then put in that fire. At first the iron is black and grey and cold, but as it is left in the fire, the energies of the fire heat it up and make it start to glow, and eventually it can start glowing with the same energies of the fire, being transformed to be like the fire while still maintaining its distinct 'iron essence', and the fire maintaining its distinct 'fire essence'. The iron doesnt become identified with the essence of the fire, but is transformed by the fires energies, which radiate out of its essence.
@@meanjoehix4534 no, and I don't know how you got there tbh.
In regards to your interview with Mikhaila Peterson. Dr. Ortlund expressed in a really charitable way some things I also think you missed Johnathan, it might be great for you guys to have a conversation, along with Dr. Jordan Cooper. My Church Advice for Mikhaila Peterson - UA-cam
Indirect message to JBP
Here's a scholar worthy of the title.
Talk more about the Prophet Nathan
As Norm would say, a real meeting of the MIND. 😄
Great stuff - *Can anyone suggest a good book that I can study the Eastern Theologians and learn the differences between East and West?* I realise I am steeped in Western Theology but it seems my heart identifies more along the lines of Eastern Orthodox. Thanks ✝
Start with Fr. Seraphim Rose. Then move into cappadocian fathers etc etc
Fr. Josiah Trenhams book rock and sand is good start
Also Fr. Josiah trenham has a talk on RC vs Orthodoxy on youtube. Also The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware
Feed the poor, love your heartless neighbors
35:00 How do you approach that with someone who isn’t looking for alternative ways of talking about religion and even sees that as moving the goalposts? I personally had a very materialist frame I viewed things through unconsciously and for a while I wasn’t even willing to consider an alternative way of understanding things. I was pretty skeptical of any “alternative”. But I still haven’t figured out how I’ve come to see things in a more “ancient” way of understanding being so skeptical previously
Thinking about it a bit more, some people think this is a language game. It is a rediscovery of more historic ways of understanding what things meant (‘cult’ for example), but again, how you could talk to a skeptic about that and get them to go along with that I’m not sure.
Shout out to Sam Hyde.
Wait what? How’s Sam Hyde related to this?
How about nah
If Dr. Jacobs wrote a book about the theological and philosophical differences between East and West I would buy it on the spot. Unfortunately, since this book doesn’t exist, and I am saddened. Does anyone here have any suggestions for material to learn about this? I’m new to the Eastern Church and know next to nothing about its tenets.
Aristotle East and West by David Bradshaw may be what you’re looking for.
But there are other books for the basic tenets even though I found you really can’t get to know Orthodoxy without jumping in a very deep well, so it’s okay to take your time.
I am Santa and I resent this.
For anyone who wants to hear a Catholic understanding for Leibniz, I recommend checking out "Philosophy for the People", who deep dive into him, and have Q&As where they've addressed this.
Yes! I’ve seen you over on that channel. Pat and Jim do a great job and made me realize Leibniz is much more complicated than may be popularly understood
@@Durziage Yes. It's very unfortunate that Ven. Fulton Sheen's quote is as true today as when he spoke it.
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
@@VACatholic I certainly believe there is a lot of truth to that quote. God bless Fulton Sheen
I was extremely excited to watch this, but the first few minutes of what I can only describe as self-aggrandizement and inflation of the ego was very cringe inducing and completely eliminated the desire to watch the rest. I mean, I’m watching it anyway and I feel like it’s a fabulous interview with a very intelligent man: But boy I could have done without the first couple of minutes. 😕
Its hard to find the truth, he was explaining how he got there
Hum… he is just doing a 5 minutes presentation of himself, what’s the big deal ?
???
Speaking of spirituality in alternate realities - you should really discover Warhammer 40k universe. It's probably the most intricate and richest universe second only to Tolkien. And set aside heavy stress on technology and corruption reflections the driving force in that universe is religion. Boy I bet there will a tremendous influx of views and subs if you elaborate on 40k universe
I am really struggling with some of the anti-jewish attitudes within orthodoxy. Anyone else seeing this? Please help here
?
The video was too short
The crazy think about the observation of the super Scientism type believing in Ghosts shows that with their Scientism they have been made hopelessly superstitious
Bump
You are awake to Klau Schwab's agenda I see.. good man
I believe in ghost. Only bc I saw one when I was 13. I know what I saw. It wasn't a glimpse in the corner of my eye . It was a full manifestation right in front of me of a little girl. Scared me to death .I cried out to God to help me .I wish now I would have talked to her to see what she wanted .
I like Nathan jacobs and Pageau both, but that section around the 40 minute mark about Augustine just reeks of “I didn’t like it so it can’t be true”.
Original sin- Biblical
It’s got some major Augustine in the formulation but it’s clear biblical language. And the complaint is “it doesn’t line up with my moral intuition”?
Oof
Disappointing strawmaning of Augustine. He calls himself a professor, but he lumps all the theology of the last 16 centuries into a voodoo doll to poke. Plus he is so self-centered, that it is appaling to hear him. Dear Mr. Pageau, don’t bend to be a soapbox for types like these!
So the Nones are basically Mulder lol
His portrayal of original sin in the west is Calvinistic not catholic. The fathers before the great divided are the Church Fathers not the Eastern fathers alone. Augustinian theology isn’t the sum of Catholic theology. The notion of the goodness of creation and humanity created in the image of God reflecting his goodness, if not perfectly, is catholic. Nevertheless what he has to say apart from his parody of catholic teaching is great a welcome.
1:09:29 What Jonathan says here is exactly the position of Thomism. It's completely unclear how he can mean that under the E&E distinction (or maintain the Trinity, or explain how the Energies differ from the Essence, or really anything about it in a deep way). However it's perfectly clear, if one looks at Aquinas's argument in De Ente et Essentia (highly recommend Dr. Gaven Kerr's explication of this on "Philosophy for the People").
The world created by God is good., says Genesis. Upon reading this, in the Septuagint, no wonder the pagan Greek philosophers rushed to get circumcised. But the poor Jews weren’t ready for them to sign up.
Films are modern day cathedrals. ❤️
Films replacing cathedrals? I don't think so.
@@candaniel2 Films replaced sermons. The 'cathedral' in the culture war refers to the whole leftist establishment that is replacing religion to become its own religion of woke.
@@candaniel2 I was referring to many people working separately on something that eventually becomes one thing - the cathedral or the film. Similar to N T Wright’s beautiful point about the stonemason not sure why his work mattered until he saw his piece in the context of a cathedral front.
There's a guy who has a great explanation of The Cathedral. I think it's The Endurance?
@@joeheppell7085 Ok, a misunderstanding on my part
i don't see the dissillusionment with the things like magic. anyway, "occult" isn't actually a category. it means "hidden." i think if your diving into the occult is in the spirit of desperately searching for meaning, drowning and thrashing in an ocean of nihilism, then you are going to crave totalitarian certainty. the "occult" is a watery thing.. it's a deep dive. if you are drowning in a sea of possibilities, embracing the hidden nature of things is not going to help you, because you seek concreteness. you seek earth, certainty, community, epistemic solidness.
however, if the reason you get into magic (symbolism) is to understand the universe, then the search can provide some sort of sustaining meaning. i think a lot of people jump from "atheism" to "the occult" to "leftism" because they are actually jumping from nihilism, to seeking, to a totalitarian sense of certainty. this pattern could just as easily replace leftism with some sort of orthodox christianity. in short, people who crave certainty at the expense of information will travel from nihilism, to seeking hidden things, to orthodoxy.. but seeking certainty at the expense of information is unwise.
He didnt have a conversation, didnt allow Pageau to speak but had a theological monologue. Not an intetactive conversation.
I'm a homosexual, the title is very attractive to me lol. Please show me the way to God.
It's simple, you need to repent.
@@TheFeralcatz somewhat crass and unhelpful methinks ...... you can't repent from a preference... repentance is turning to God......bring yourself to God, in your entirety and He will show you what is really you and what can be chipped away... come to God as we all do, as a sinner, labels beyond that are unnecessary.
@@gillianc6514 Okay, if you don't understand what i'm saying, let me try to make it clearer. He needs to stop putting pp's in his poo poo.
Look up Milo's journey. He used to be gay, married to another man. Now he is abstinent and a Catholic.
The truth will set you free.
Reality, rejecting fantasy will set you free.
The ironic neediness of calling the unchurched religiously unaffiliated "Nuns."
Nones= no religious affiliation
@@anneboggie7156 I know that.
...they leave Christ and turn towards the devil...?
No Paraclete is inside Jesus, only the Father is inside Jesus to help Him. This means that the HOLY SPIRIT INSIDE JESUS IS THE FATHER - who is a spirit ("God is a spirit")- and that NO THIRD DIVINE PERSON EXISTS, (the Paraclete is not the Holy Spirit). Further, Jesus is helped when going into the desert, this means JESUS IS NOT OMNIPOTENT. Jesus cannot be "temporarily" not omnipotent just during his life on earth because Jesus is God and according to the Trinity doctrine God does not change. Thus, the Trinity doctrine is false because A. no third divine person exists and B. Jesus is God but He is NOT omnipotent.
Metaphysics is just a concept of man. To mold your theology and understanding behind such fringe theoretical ideas does not show evidence of someone rooted Truth. This guy constantly appeals to authority instead of God's word.
He said boomers…
Yes that was an unfortunate overly broad stereotype
... 😑
This dude has no clue what the Catholic position is on sin or grace 🤣🤣🤣 sit down bro.
Wouldn't god be the sinner since he is the creator?
It seems backwards to say that humans are sinful when their nature isn't their choice. If someone is all mighty he would also be responsible for everything. All the evil in the world.
Not necessarily. Maybe a war between angels and devils left deep scars on the world and that caused evil things.
@@bruceknee1916 But god would be responsible for the angels and demons too.
@@kulturkriget no. In everyday life we stop ascribing responsibility when someone else's will enters the causal chain. If the joker shot batman's parents then he caused it. But if a gang member shot another one and the joker cleverly reflected that bullet to hit thomas wayne it's still the joker. You wouldn't blame the person firing the gun in the second case.
You misunderstand what is meant by true human nature. It isnt exactly you are, it is what you are called to be. Like platonic forms. That framework should resolve your other problem too, since you seem to have merged 2 ideas together there.
@@bruceknee1916 I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I am talking about a being that is in total control and set up all parametrars from the very beginning. That decides a persons character through nature and nurture.
I wouldn't blame the Joker or the gang member, I would blame the director or screenwriter that made the decision before the movie was even filmed.