Roosh Hour #65 – Milo Yiannopoulos

MichaelWitcoff

Ostrich
Orthodox
Had a long and productive day so I couldn't articulate this earlier, but I'll do my best to explain why St. Augustine was wrong to suggest that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father in terms of relations between the Persons of God. His basic argument appears to be that every Person of God possesses the same rank, power, honor, glory, and dignity as the other Persons - and therefore, following his logic (and assuming the quote from SouthernCross is an accurate reflection of St. Augustine's beliefs), he was trying to say that it would make the Son somehow "lesser" than the Father if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and not from the Son.

The problem with this, as articulated by the Cappadocian Fathers (St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory Nazienzen), is that the three Persons of God can maintain equal rank, power, honor, glory, and dignity while still being distinct according to role. St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote, in On The Holy Spirit: "Except for the distinction of order and Person, no variation in any point is to be apprehended; but we assert that while [the Holy Spirit]'s place is counted third in mere sequence after the Father and Son, third in the order of the transmission, in all other respects we acknowledge His inseparable union with them; both in nature, in honor, in Godhead, and glory, and majesty, and almighty power, and in all devout belief."

Before I explain the importance of what he's saying, I first have to clarify that by "third in the order" and "third in mere sequence," St. Gregory is not saying that the Father existed first, the Son second, and the Spirit third. To believe that is to place the uncreated God, outside of time and space, into the time/space creation where things like temporal "order" exist. Orthodox triadology does not recognize, and has never recognized, a time when the Father existed and the Son or Spirit did not. They came into "existence" simultaneously, and St. Gregory is using this imperfect analogy only to make a point that is elaborated on elsewhere in the Cappadocian patristic writings: the specific role of the Person of the Father is to be the cause of the Son and the Spirit. He did not create them, but He caused them, and so the Father is traditionally regarded as the only Person of the Trinity Who is properly unoriginate. In this instance and context, the role of the Father is to be the Person from Whom the Son is begotten and from Whom the Spirit proceeds. This specific role is not shared with the other Persons, as is the rank, glory, majesty, etc, and is what the Fathers are referring to when they talk about the "monarchy of the Father."

Now, you may ask - but how could the Father exist at the same time as the two other Persons if He caused them? St. Gregory Nazienzen responds to this question by using the analogy of the sun and its light. Which came into being first, the sun or its light? The answer, of course, is neither came "first:" they come into being at precisely the same time. The sun cannot exist without giving off light, and sunlight cannot exist apart from the sun which causes it. He uses this analogy to demonstrate that not every effect necessarily has a preceding cause; sometimes cause and effect are simultaneous. So it is with the Holy Trinity.

If we follow St. Augustine's logic to its endpoint, we arrive at a bizarre Trinity in which the Father is begotten of the Spirit and proceeds from the Son - since the SouthernCross quote demonstrates no distinction whatsoever between the Persons and their roles - in addition to every other combination of begetting and proceeding. This is certainly not the traditional Christian belief, and as far as I know is not accepted any more by Roman Catholicism than it is by Eastern Orthodoxy.
 
Last edited:

Feyoder

Kingfisher
he specific role of the Person of the Father is to be the cause of the Son and the Spirit. He did not create them, but He caused them, and so the Father is traditionally regarded as the only Person of the Trinity Who is properly unoriginate

Now, you may ask - but how could the Father exist at the same time as the two other Persons if He caused them? St. Gregory Nazienzen responds to this question by using the analogy of the sun and its light. Which came into being first, the sun or its light? The answer, of course, is neither came "first:" they come into being at precisely the same time. The sun cannot exist without giving off light, and sunlight cannot exist apart from the sun which causes it. He uses this analogy to demonstrate that not every effect necessarily has a preceding cause; sometimes cause and effect are simultaneous. So it is with the Holy Trinity.

How can someone be unoriginate / the "unmoved mover" yet come into being at the same time as other people?

I have never heard an argument that solves the trinity and regard it as a mystery beyond comprehension.

Well, the mormons do it. But that's mormonism.
 

MichaelWitcoff

Ostrich
Orthodox
How can someone be unoriginate / the "unmoved mover" yet come into being at the same time as other people?

I have never heard an argument that solves the trinity and regard it as a mystery beyond comprehension.

Well, the mormons do it. But that's mormonism.

The sun and its light come into being at the same time, as they’re part of the created order. The Trinity exists eternally, and all three Persons have co-existed eternally. The method by which the Trinity exists, and the inner workings of God, are completely unknowable to us.
 

SilentCal

Robin
Honestly I really never understood why the filioque issue is such a big deal. It seems pretty easy to read it in a way that’s consistent with Eastern theology. I don’t think “filioque” even said in the Creed in the Eastern Catholic churches.

 

ChadSteele

Chicken
Originally posted on RooshV.com

milo-1024x717.jpg

I interview Milo Yiannopoulos about his ongoing repentance, living in the public limelight, Catholic vs Orthodox spiritual guidance, temptations, spiritual warfare, and a lot more.

Watch video here: https://www.rooshv.com/roosh-hour-65-milo-yiannopoulos


If you receive value from my videos, please support my work by making a donation or buying my new book.


Listen to the stream in your favorite podcast app. You can also download it or listen below:


Watch Next: Roosh Hour #64 – Baptism
Permalink

Originally posted on RooshV.com

milo-1024x717.jpg

I interview Milo Yiannopoulos about his ongoing repentance, living in the public limelight, Catholic vs Orthodox spiritual guidance, temptations, spiritual warfare, and a lot more.

Watch video here: https://www.rooshv.com/roosh-hour-65-milo-yiannopoulos


If you receive value from my videos, please support my work by making a donation or buying my new book.


Listen to the stream in your favorite podcast app. You can also download it or listen below:


Watch Next: Roosh Hour #64 – Baptism
Permalink
Thankful you challenged him.
 

MichaelWitcoff

Ostrich
Orthodox
Yes, I also don't follow. If one is a consequence of the other, how can they both come into existence at the same time?
As per St. Gregory’s analogy, a sun cannot exist without giving off light. Therefore they exist simultaneously. Ultimately no analogy can accurately represent the inner workings of the Holy Trinity, as the Fathers who came up with such analogies acknowledged, but they are meant to bring the limited human mind closer to an understanding of that which is fundamentally incomprehensible.
 

KantPost

Sparrow
As per St. Gregory’s analogy, a sun cannot exist without giving off light. Therefore they exist simultaneously. Ultimately no analogy can accurately represent the inner workings of the Holy Trinity, as the Fathers who came up with such analogies acknowledged, but they are meant to bring the limited human mind closer to an understanding of that which is fundamentally incomprehensible.
They end up existing simultaneously but surely one proceeds from the other?
 
As per St. Gregory’s analogy, a sun cannot exist without giving off light. Therefore they exist simultaneously. Ultimately no analogy can accurately represent the inner workings of the Holy Trinity, as the Fathers who came up with such analogies acknowledged, but they are meant to bring the limited human mind closer to an understanding of that which is fundamentally incomprehensible.
I understand what St. Gregory's analogy is trying to say but it' still not a completely valid one because, after all, it's trying to explain things not of this world with our world's laws of physics. To our eyes, it might seem like the source of light exist simultaneously with the light it gives off but it's not true. There is always a moment when there's no light even though the source of it is already active. Light, after all, still travels in space.

Saying that, the above is not my main issue with the whole 'who proceeds from who' debate about the Trinity. Both EO and RC (and most Protestants too, I assume) agree that while we live on this Earth, we will never be able to fully understand the concept of the Trinity beyond few core certainties: God is in three persons who are all equally "God-like" and they all have always existed simultaneously. The rest is not even too difficult for us to understand, it's simply beyond our human comprehension. Our minds cannot operate at such level of abstraction. Yet, we managed to create huge divisions and build complex philosophies around them, even though these are the things that can't really be fully philosophised about. After all, Catholics agreed with Orthodox understanding of the Trinity and it all boils down to the words that one side used. And we're talking about the concept that cannot be ever fully described using words.
 

IMMImedia

Sparrow
How can someone be unoriginate / the "unmoved mover" yet come into being at the same time as other people?

I have never heard an argument that solves the trinity and regard it as a mystery beyond comprehension.

Well, the mormons do it. But that's mormonism.
because he is God and matephysical in Jesus. As God it is non physical, ruler of the universe, he, she , it, that, hat, etc can do whatever to whoever. Look at it like a tier system of authority like childrens service, with social services coming for some meetings, that is Jesus. Then you as the parent have to want to act better, that is the holy spirit, change of mind. And if you still do not change, then it goes to the legal system which is God. Or think of it as jesus=diplomacy, holy spirit is manifested by sanctions, God is the UN going into countries. Jesus is the metaphysical being needed to reach those who are so lost they cannot hear God, and need personal interaction and proof. The Holy spirit is what most people get, an open heart that is willing to change. And those who ignores the manifestations from God in life, and the holy spirit, they got to stand trial with God after death. Real simple. You only get to see God in the afterlife, in this life the reps are Jesus and the holy spirit.
 

Pioneer

Sparrow
Augustine taught much of the same doctrines as Calvin. Calvin often refers to Augustine's teachings in his writings.
Calvinism is a mutilated form of Augustinianism in the same way that Gnosticism is a mutilated form of Christianity. Augustine cannot be judged by the distortions of his ideas affected by heretics. The problem is that many Orthodox, through their virulent disdain for Catholicism, are ultimately driven to assault the undiluted teachings of Augustine himself. But who can blame them? They've been inoculated against anything "western" by a millennia of state-sponsored propaganda. Augustine is a Saint, but he's so Catholic, and the Catholics are heretics. It's a contradiction and it poses problems for those Orthodox who see the filioque, purgatory, original sin etc. as rank heresies rather than differences in theological opinion.
 

DanielaEverheart

Sparrow
Woman
Regarding the major argument over the question of sinning in order to save souls,
Roosh: God does not need you so do not do it
Milo: It is important to not stand back and do nothing when the enemies are at the gate so small compromises are ok.

I answer that both positions have an element of truth. On the one hand it is NEVER ok to sin. All sins are sins against the infinitely holy God and represent rebellion. Nevertheless it is also important to fight and it is likely true that Milo's skills would be employed well in continuing the culture wars.

So a better position would be the decision to continue engaging in the culture wars while not assenting to commit sin while doing it. If he sins incidentally, then he should repent of that sin and try again. During this time he should work to build up a better theology of sin to understand how to reconcile effective rhetoric with the law of God. Jesus himself was scathing at times and gentle at other times.
He was Beautiful , effective rhetoric Is important . How hard it is to reconcile the act, but Holy Spirit fire guides us along the way...
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Orthodox
I understand what St. Gregory's analogy is trying to say but it' still not a completely valid one because, after all, it's trying to explain things not of this world with our world's laws of physics. To our eyes, it might seem like the source of light exist simultaneously with the light it gives off but it's not true. There is always a moment when there's no light even though the source of it is already active. Light, after all, still travels in space.

Saying that, the above is not my main issue with the whole 'who proceeds from who' debate about the Trinity. Both EO and RC (and most Protestants too, I assume) agree that while we live on this Earth, we will never be able to fully understand the concept of the Trinity beyond few core certainties: God is in three persons who are all equally "God-like" and they all have always existed simultaneously. The rest is not even too difficult for us to understand, it's simply beyond our human comprehension. Our minds cannot operate at such level of abstraction. Yet, we managed to create huge divisions and build complex philosophies around them, even though these are the things that can't really be fully philosophised about. After all, Catholics agreed with Orthodox understanding of the Trinity and it all boils down to the words that one side used. And we're talking about the concept that cannot be ever fully described using words.

The sun is not a lightbulb. I'll repeat then flesh out what @MichaelWitcoff said, The sun cannot exist without giving off light, and sunlight cannot exist apart from the sun which causes it. If it does not give off light, then it's not a sun. If the sun ceased to give off light, then it wouldn't be the sun anymore. It may have used to be a sun, but it is not a sun anymore. Objects require properties for their existence, without those properties they cease to be the same thing. If you throw a chair into a fire, is it still a chair? or would you describe is as a pile of ashes? Is a hole still a hole if it's been filled?

@MichaelWitcoff read my previous post on page 8, Dr Johnson/Fr. Raphael believes that St. Augustine is misinterpreted.
 

BasedBaker

Sparrow
Just finished listening to the interview. I felt Roosh was being a little preachy and Milo was annoying when talking over Roosh. I agree with Milo assessments of Roosh being very slippery at times trying to push the Orthodox faith. Both are men of God and I throughly enjoy them both.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
It's interesting to me that the sedes only flocked here to start causing trouble after Roosh joined ROCOR. Maybe there were a few before this, but they weren't of the trolling variety seen lately, and didn't seem to care that he was in the Armenian church which is as equally not-Roman Catholic as the Orthodox Church.

Have you considered if the increased issues are a result of the overall shift in attitude/saltiness of the EO membership on the forum here has changed after Roosh joined ROCOR?

Remember Matthew 7.
 
Top