Roosh Hour #65 – Milo Yiannopoulos

Rob Banks

Pelican
^ Please, let's not do this. ^



I can't speak for you Rob, just do your best and make your conscience as strong as you can. I don't know whether the dryness you experience is just a personal phase, as Christians do experience dryness, or whether it's always there.

Churches need bureaucracy to some extent to be able to function in the world. It's part of our fallen state, we either are inattentive and don't realize what needs to be done, or are too proud to do what's needed, and thus we need an ordered systems to fill in the blanks, It's not bureaucracy as administration that I see an issue with, I'm just not delicate enough to know how to bring it up without people bringing out the pitchforks.

I'm afraid though, with your post that you have trouble attending church, do try to pick one church and stick with it.
I actually do not have trouble getting myself to church provided I am close by or havr proper transportation.

I have trouble finding a church I am comfortable with.

Aside from the bureacracy and the "dryness," it might be because I do not really have too many family and friends who go to church. I am also not the most exteoverted/outgoing person in the world. So I tend to feel like an outsider when I go to a new church.

I have gotten to know some Franciscan friars in my area. With them, I never felt like an outsider, or like their practice and teaching of the faith was "dry." Unfortunately, they do not offer public Masses every Sunday.
 

Augustus_Principe

Woodpecker
For clarification I was not trying to display my piety but hint at the intensity of Orthodoxy for a layman.

No worries, Roosh. I should’ve mentioned in my post that I didn’t think you were showing off or being prideful when mentioning your own prayer schedule in the stream. I know that the standards imposed on the Orthodox laity are higher than those of regular (Novus ordo) Catholics, ie standard prayer time the laity should follow as you mentioned, when to fast, lent is also more strict, etc. of course Milo didn’t know this and took offense. For traditional Catholics however, the requirements are similar to Orthodox. We also fast every Friday, with Wednesday being optional but recommended, a routine prayer time as I already mentioned, confession is encouraged at least once a month, ideally every other week, during lent there is no meat and we also do a black fast during Good Friday, and on and on. We follow the requirements pre-Vatican 2. there is a lot of work traditionalist have to do in order for these requirements to officially go back to the way they were instead of this extremely relaxed, post Vatican 2 sad state it is now...

I hope Milo is attending a Traditional Latin Mass church, ideally SSPX. If he is learning Latin then that at least tells me he is attending a church that does the mass in Latin. I just hope it isn’t a regular diocesan church. FSSP would be a good choice for him as well. Hopefully he reads this and heeds the suggestion.
 

Grace through faith

Chicken
Woman
Did anyone call themselves "Reformed Presbytarians", "Lutherans", "Calvinist", "Anglicans" etc, before the 1500s? Serious question. It seems the only groups that had labels (Besides Catholic/Orthodox) from AD 33 to 1500s were Heretics (Arians, Donatist, Cathars, Bogomils, etc)
Augustine taught much of the same doctrines as Calvin. Calvin often refers to Augustine's teachings in his writings.
 

MichaelWitcoff

Ostrich
Orthodox
Augustine taught much of the same doctrines as Calvin. Calvin often refers to Augustine's teachings in his writings.

St. Augustine’s theories on the “predestined elect,” never accepted by the greater Church to begin with, included the notion that a person could not truly know whether they were elect or not. Every Calvinist on the planet is very, very sure that they are among the elect.

St. Paul: “I judge not even myself.”
 

Caramasão

Sparrow
Orthodox Inquirer
Roosh comes across very arrogant to me considering his past. I used to be where he is - living a perfectly holy miserable life. I rejoice with Milo. No condemnation. Reformed faith is biblical. Elevates God not man.
Does it make any difference in your doctrine that Milo ceases to be a sodomite or was he already saved even fornicating with a man?
 
This is partly condensed from the book: Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomozansky, translated and with footnotes by Father Seraphim Rose, and much is transcribed, for my own notes.

6. How was the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Spirit altered in the Latin church? What arguments do the Latin theologians use to support their teaching about the Holy Spirit?

The Latin distortion came about by the creation of a teaching of the pre-eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son – the Filioque. The idea originated in certain expressions of the Blessed Augustine, and in the 9th century became obligatory amoung the evangelizing Germans, who had already inserted the Filioque into the Creed with the approval of Pope Nicholas I. In 870 the Bulgarian Church was assigned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the German missionaries were expelled from Bulgaria.

Out of “missionary” aims, the Roman Church has, in more recent times, disguised the divergance and its importance, whereby the popes have kept the ancient Orthodox text of the Symbol of Faith, without the words “and from the Son,” for the Uniates and “Eastern Rite”. Their condescension extends to assert that the Western dogma in its developed form (explicite) is concealed in the Orthodox dogma in as yet an undeveloped form (implicite); (this in accordance with the Roman theory of the “development of dogmas”). Assuredly, Latin Dogmatic works which are intended for internal use, give a definite treatment of the Orthodox dogma of procession (of the Holy Spirit) as a “heresy”.

“…schismatic Greeks who teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Already in the year 808, Greek monks protested against the introduction by the Latins of the word Filioque into the Creed…” – Officially appreoved Latin dogmatic work by Dr. A. Sanda (Sinopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae Specialis vol 1)

The Latin dogma agrees neither with Sacred Scripture, nor Sacred Tradition of the Church, not even with the most ancient tradition of the Local Church of Rome.

Latins cite a series of passages from Sacred Scripture where the Holy Spirit is called “of Christ”, where it is said that He is given by the Son of God; from this they conclude that He proceeds also from the Son.

The words of the Saviour to his disciples concerning the Holy Spirit, the Comforter: He shall take of Mine, and shall show it unto you (John 16:15)

The words of the Apostle Paul: God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts (Gal.4:6), also: Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Rom. 8:9)

From the Gospel of John: He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit (John 20:22)

Also cited are passages from the Holy Fathers where there is mention of the sending of the Holy Spirit “through the son” and “proceeding through the son”.

However, no reasoning of any kind can obscure the perfectly precise words of the Saviour: the Comfortor…Whom I will send unto you from the Father, and immediately following: the Spirit of Truth, who proceedeth from the Father (John 15:26)

The Latins may be confusing two dogmas – the personal existence of the Hypostases, and the Oneness of the Essence. Or else they are confusing the inner relations of the Hypostases with providential manifestations. The Holy Spirit is One in Essence with the Father and the Son and therefore is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

From Blessed Theodoret we learn: “…(the Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father and has the same Nature as the Son, is in fact the Spirit of the Son as being One in Essence with Him.”

All of the Eastern Fathers acknowledge the Father as monos aitios, the “sole Cause” of the Son and the Spirit. The expression “through the Son” preserves the inviolability of the dogmatic formula “proceedeth from the Father”. Often the Holy Fathers use the expression “through the Son” to refer definitely to the manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the world, not to the life of God in Himself. (Again: confusing texts of Sacred Scripture which speak of the “procession” with others that speak of “sending” the Holy Spirit, Latins transferred the concept of providential (manifestation) relations to the very existence of the Godhead – to the relations there between the Persons of the Holy Trinity.)

Cannonical violation: Introducing a new dogma violated the decree of the Third and subsequent Ecumenical Councils (4th to 7th centuries) which forbade the introduction of any kind of change into the Nicean Symbol of Faith after the Second Ecumenical Council had given its final form.

When Latins aver the divergence is merely that they teach the procession “also from the Son” while we teach the procession “through the Son”, it hides, at the very least a misunderstanding: “through the Son” does not at all comprise a dogma of the Orthodox, it is only an explanatory means of certain Holy Fathers whereas the very meaning of the teaching is in essence different.

Definitively answered by St. Thomas Aquinas here:

Summa Theologicae: Prima Pars, q. 36, Article 3. “Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son?”

Case closed.
 

MichaelWitcoff

Ostrich
Orthodox
Last edited:
Have you read them?
Have you?

“And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, Whom I will send unto you from the Father; and in another place, Whom the Father will send in my name. And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself[.] … Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. But let no one think of any times therein which imply a sooner and a later; because these things are not there at all. How, then, would it not be most absurd to call Him the Son of both: when, just as generation from the Father, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence, without beginning of time; so procession from both, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence without beginning of time?”

St. Augustine
 
Last edited:

MichaelWitcoff

Ostrich
Orthodox
Have you?

“And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, Whom I will send unto you from the Father; and in another place, Whom the Father will send in my name. And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself[.] … Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. But let no one think of any times therein which imply a sooner and a later; because these things are not there at all. How, then, would it not be most absurd to call Him the Son of both: when, just as generation from the Father, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence, without beginning of time; so procession from both, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence without beginning of time?”

St. Augustine

Yes actually, I’ve read dozens of their books. Clearly you have not, since you resorted to copy-pasting something I suspect you found after I asked. St. Augustine is my patron Saint, and I have a special connection to him, but he espoused several things that were his opinion alone and were not accepted by the Church as a whole. In the quote you posted, he was largely making the exact mistake that I commented “^This” on a few moments ago - which you “refuted” by copy-pasting something else, before the Augustine quote that you apparently did not realize simply confirmed what I said. The other mistake he’s making is a failure to distinguish between specific roles of the three Persons, which if he’d had access to he would have found corrected in the Cappadocian Fathers who came before him.

In either case there remains nothing like Aristotle anywhere in the Fathers (which you’d know if you had read them) and the quote you posted proved me right and not you.
 
Last edited:
Yes actually, I’ve read dozens of their books.
I’m not impressed. I also have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany. You’ve read them, but have you actually understood them?
Clearly you have not, since you resorted to copy-pasting something I suspect you found after I asked. St. Augustine is my patron Saint, and I have a special connection to him,
I have a special connection to St. Augustine as well; we share the same Roman Catholic faith. For a patron saint, you sure do charge St. Augustine with a lot of theological errors.
but he espoused several things that were his opinion alone and were not accepted by the Church as a whole.
Ah, but you’re wrong. The Church as a whole has accepted the Filioque.
In the quote you posted, he was largely making the exact mistake that I commented “^This” on a few moments ago - which you “refuted” by copy-pasting something else, before the Augustine quote that you apparently did not realize simply confirmed what I said. The other mistake he’s making is a failure to distinguish between specific roles of the three Persons, which if he’d had access to he would have found corrected in the Cappadocian Fathers who came before him.
Saint Augustine was making a mistake? If only he had had access to the internet, he could have simply watched a couple of your Youtube vids so you could correct him, seventeen centuries after the fact…

And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son…”
In either case there remains nothing like Aristotle anywhere in the Fathers (which you’d know if you had read them) and the quote you posted proved me right and not you.
There remains nothing like neo-Platonism or neo-Palamism anywhere in the Fathers. Would you mind explaining how you can accuse Protestants of being in error for using “sola scriptura” when you are doing the same thing with the “Church Fathers”? Similar to Protestants who erroneously insert the word “alone” into Scripture to twist its meaning (“You see that by faith alone a man is justified”), you insert the word “alone” into the Nicene Creed (“He proceedeth from the Father alone…”)
 
Last edited:

buckyinky

Chicken
I listened with great interest to the interview and am grateful to Roosh for hosting, conducting, and making it available.

The greatest weakness Roosh displayed was to conflate Milo's understanding of Catholic teaching and prayer life with actual Catholic teaching and prayer, even after Milo made clear he is not one to come to in order to get a clear picture of such things, more than once as I recall. It became almost bizarre to my ears that Roosh continued doggedly to inquire of Milo as if he was a good one to explain the Catholic position, relative to the reserve and patience and responsiveness I've become accustomed to hearing from Roosh in other things.

On the matter of Roosh's counsel to Milo not to seek work in the public. I found myself at first unequivocally agreeing with Roosh, particularly since the sin of sodomy wounds the person in the way it does, making its victim blind to its own narcissism. However, I think Milo was pushing back in a legitimate manner in another respect. It touches on the Catholic-EO divide I think, and it is the decidedly more enthusiastic embrace of the Incarnation by the Catholic (or Western if you prefer) Church vis-vis the EO. It has always seemed to me that the Incarnation, while accepted as true by the EO, is treated as a matter brushed under the rug, almost as if in embarrassment. Whereas the Western Church embraces and actively celebrates this truth, and the implications are often a greater propensity to spend life in the trenches rather than actively removed from the world for the salvation of one's soul. Or rather, Catholic spirituality would tend to see life in the trenches as a necessary component of such salvation.

I do not see this as a matter of heresy or doctrinal difference between the two, but a point of emphasis. Catholics seem to be comfortable with the fact that we are in the world, and even celebrate the fact; EO seem to dwell on the "not of this world" clause, and appear to begrudge the fact that we must be "in the world" even while acknowledging the truth of it.
 
The Waldensian case is interesting, and sad in how it turned out with violent suppression.

But reading about them, they seem more like an offshoot of 13th-century Catholicism that eventually merged with the later Protestant movement, than a continuous underground Church running parallel to Rome. Regardless, I can see these kinds of movements creating problems for the Roman narrative of the Church; that would be up to our Catholic members to explain, maybe, but they're not really an issue for the Orthodox - and I find it interesting that post-Schism, you don't see these sorts of movements in Orthodox lands. No protestant movement naturally emerged in Orthodox lands - it only arrived there through importation from Western Europe.
Russian history is full of these quasi-Protestant movements:
 
Top