Nick Fuentes says don't read your bible, just listen to "clergy"
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
Not bad faith at all, it's my understanding of the quote, which is Metropolitan Kallistos (1934-2022), "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not", The Orthodox Church. Now I see cited against him Theophan the Recluse (1815-1894), "Christ is here, in our Orthodox Church, and He is not in any other church", Thoughts for Each Day. (I wonder how an individual would judge between two apparently contrary implications from within didactic Orthodoxy.) I learned the first quote as if it were normative from the Orthodox u/CuomoisaMassMurderer. Perhaps you think Kallistos was not a valid teacher, but if so you would just make my point about individual judgment even stronger; if his view isn't what you regard as Orthodoxy, it's strange then that it should be taken as Orthodoxy (unless individual judgment exists).
Can you show this before the Great Schism?
But the early church didn't teach that their own teachings were verified by earlier church teachings alone, but by (originally Hebrew) Scripture and tradition. My understanding is that later teachings also taught that they would be verified by both Scripture and tradition. Your phrasing puts a difference between verifying early and verifying late.
That's my point! What is static isn't alive.
Life isn't to change truth but to refine it by bringing out more of it that harmonizes with what came before, such as adapting it to the tech age. Jesus refined the OT tradition and interpretation.
It's not a word game but original (though somewhat forgotten today). We were first called Evangelical, 1517 (that's the real unity and we share it with others), then we agreed to be named after the Protestation of Speyer, 1529. If we and Rome worked out the Luther issue we protested, we should reunify, which would also mean working out the evangel. It was because of treatment of Luther that the Protestants declared Rome to have fallen, which is just like the Orthodox's view of treatment of Michael; but we mostly admitted we coulda been wrong. Rome did a counter-reformation, and we cleaned up our rhetoric, and those initial extremes are now past and the movement is now about what is the evangel and how long will the protest last.
Which they determined they did, your position notwithstanding. They held that personal interpretation of Scripture and Tradition is all that we have because we imperfect ones can never comprehend or accommodate God's perfect standard. There is no external stack of books called Scripture and Tradition to which I can point everyone to externally, there is only every man's conception of Scripture and Tradition, which often largely overlap. (There's never even been a collection of perfect autographs of the whole Scripture in one place, God deliberately kept the several inspired manuscripts away from each other so we'd recognize via copying that we are imperfect carriers.) So "Tradition" is not a standard because it doesn't externally exist to our experience, unless we count it as a concept in God's ineffable mind, something that we each collectively and substantially approximate.
There are two standards: the temporal standard is what any man or organization judges on earth for themselves, which is their judgment and which stands for their domain; and the eternal standard is what God judges and eventually reveals by "positioning candlesticks". The temporal standard can fail and need correcting; we keep testing and trust another that we're getting it right instead of ourselves. We submit to the wisdom of the eternal standard even if we're wrong on any point and it takes awhile to find out.
Orthodoxy is preserved from major error while it stands, but it seems to admit error. (Because I want to learn,) I find that Archbishop Stylianos pretty well recently introduced Orthodoxy to the ideal of conciliar infallibility. (Before that, OrthodoxWiki notes Catholic Gallican Assembly 1682 and Utrecht II Council 1763 placed infallibility generically in the church to prevent it from being papal, though that didn't last in Rome.) So I'm not confident that Orthodoxy teaches that it never errs; the AI is giving me that it may have changed its position on contraception since 1937, which isn't a great example, but if it never taught infallibility until others made it a hot button then it wasn't denying risk of error even at the conciliar level.
What of my claim that it proves other churches are true also? Whenever you cite something and I say I see the same elsewhere, we're not making progress. Maybe we could both agree on where to find the deposit of tradition, or maybe not because it's living and we must point to people, but we don't agree on the epistemology or the nature of the deposit. How can I go against my conscience first and only then see that my conscience was wrong? I change my ways because my conscience is awakened, I don't change my conscience to fit some way I could be walking. You've used your conscience to surrender your conscience, fine; but my conscience isn't permitting me to surrender it, even as I believe that it does surrender to a coherent system that addresses its concerns. So how could we arrive at unity of conscience unless we either agree on the standard we individually use or one of us capitulates conscience?
Without an agreed standard, we don't have proof Orthodoxy is the (only) true Church from history. If the Spirit told me (by intuition or by thought) that a church was a True (eternal) Church, I'd know it would always be right, just like we decide collectively which glorified saints are definitely the True Eternal Church. I don't get that certainty in earth establishments. I can hope, but eschatologically I can't speak of knowledge that a current org will continue forever or that it will die out.
And I don't argue about eschatology, which you point out is part of the debate. If we "only" know a heretic after he dies, or a heretic movement after it dies, then all going concerns are unknown. John hints that we might intuit special knowledge of eternal damnation, and I think we might intuit special knowledge of eternal salvation too. I might get a revelation that the Orthodox is in fact eternal, but I wouldn't logically argue that from your sources but only from the revelation. I can certainly argue logically that there's an invisible church on earth and it is in fact eternal (in the new heaven-earth), but I don't get to assign that to individuals or orgs with certainty apart from revelation.
But I guessed right, your conclusion offers hope. We are (all) just to renounce false beliefs when they arise and make no negotiation or compromise contrary to (a) the written traditions or (b) the living decisions of our appointed leaders. Did I summarize you accurately on that?
Because let's say you invite me to get catechized by your bishop. I don't usually have a problem submitting to books I am offered, if I'm permitted to ask informational questions if I perceive paradox or contradiction. I would presume that the bishop would seek to answer questions and not argue that I must believe a paradox against my conscience; and that comes to the living decisions. If I seek catechesis sincerely and admit at the start I'm a hard case, and it should come to the point where the bishop and I disagree over how to basically break new ground in resolving the meaning of tradition, then we have logical options. Either we agree to disagree and I leave (making him no longer my responsible leader); or one of us conscientiously suspends judgment (including by dropping the subject) and decides to abide with the other knowing the risk that unresolved suspension may grow into problems later; or we press on working with each other until a "new" harmony bridge is built (founded on the old territory). In none of those does it appear that the bishop has some right to wield tradition over the head of my conscience and overwhelm and quench it. (I could naturally submit my conscience from the start and agree to be totally bound by the conscience of others even unto my destruction, and then I'd be judged only for that submission and not for the judgments made by others, but that way's been tried and is pretty sterile, and tempts people to break the bond.) So I conclude the use of Scripture and tradition is always to bolster the use of conscience and not to usurp it. Do you see an issue with that approach to catechesis?
Dude I can't deal with your filibustering and walls of texts. We're going in circles but the circles only get bigger because you can't write to the point. I'm addressing this and tapping out.
You don't see the problem with this? What does "largely overlap" entail? An appeal to majority's interpretation? For the last time: You don't have a standard against which to judge what the correct interpretation of both scripture and tradition is. If one protestant believes in baptism and the other doesn't when both appeal to their interpretation of Scripture, how do you arbiter this?
Wrong. Tradition exists externally in the Church which keeps it. It doesn't exist externally in your system where very denomination or Bible reader makes up their own tradition by deconstructing and reforming what came before. Sure, some are more conservative with the process but that's arbitrary - both radicals and conservatives are equally Protestant (same goes for "protestantism" in the political realm - the left/right republicans where both sides are equally revolutionary and opposed to true conservatism which is monarchy and Church). Just like everything else in this system, it's entirely subjective and built around the individual and their immediate relationship with God. It is self-worship guised as Christianity. Protestantism is at its core satanic because it appeals to man and not God (the Church being His Body and His Spirit) as the authority. I can be a protestant and deny all previous traditions while interpreting Scripture in the most schizo way possible and you still wouldn't be able to tell me that I'm wrong and I'm not the Church. As long as I appeal to Scripture we're at an equal footing epistemologically.
how do you explain https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FG6jRyaIbwAUXbH3.jpg https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FG6jRyaIbwAIPjwe.jpg https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FG6jRyaKbwAMOMHq.jpg
?
Clearly the nazis weren't True Christians.
Of course they weren't. You have to be a complete ignoramus of history and philosophy of ideas to think that.
National socialism is as antichristian as any socialist ideology. It stems from the Enlightenment freemasonic triadic mantra "Liberty - Equality - Fraternity" just like all other revolutionary ideologies. This together with the left-right dialectic (radical communism and socialism vs capitalism and libertarianism) of the French Revolution and the nationalism-internationalism dialectic defines every movement in the past 250 years.
On top of that nazis are occultists and the Party follows the model of the secret societies originating from illuminism, freemasonry and the jesuits. Keep in mind all movements are based on liberalism, revolutionary ethos and republicanism at its core (just like the French Revolution). What they disagree on is the model of the NWO and how it should be achieved. Here are examples:
Nazism and Fascism are nationalist left-wing Fraternity with right-wing tendencies
Bolshevism is internationalist left-wing Equality
Sovietism (USSR after Stalin) is nationalist left-wing Equality
Liberal democracies are internationalist right-wing Liberty (based on classical liberalism) with left-wing tendencies
What you said, Scripture is part of Tradition.
Exactly, only God does.
Any number of ways. (1) It doesn't need to be arbitrated anytime soon, they continue in separate polities. (2) They negotiate an agreement together or with a mediator. (3) One unilaterally yields either by submission or by enfolding. Same as in your church if two people of equal standing disagree BTW.
You imply that separation is a problem because of an assumption something like there's only one Church organization on earth. Not proven.
Then it's writing to be interpreted, or lives that are dynamic and capable of adjustment. Neither of those are absolute like God is.
What I said.
You'd be surprised what reliance on tradition becomes (as you understand it, or as any mere human understands it)! Worshipping only God means leaning on him to teach not assuming we have the whole teaching accessible by human methods.
Well, you're free to keep me excommunicated, I did offer to seek catechesis, I'll just have to ask the next Orthodox. I'm not kidding either. Soon as we get over this hump of understanding authority, the rest is a downhill 3-year period. But I learned from Luther it is never safe or right to go against conscience. If I leave my conscience outside the door, that's the only place I can go back and get it if I ever need it!
I told you I appeal to God. Of course I appeal to the Body of Christ within that; I appeal to the Spirit who reveals; I appeal to the Word of God; I appeal to any special appearance the Father yields. (I don't have the Church being his Spirit, Orthodoxy teaches it's the dwelling of his Spirit.) When you tell me I'm satanic because I don't appeal to the Orthodox Church the Spirit of God, that's pressing it pretty far, your bishop might say.
Of course I can tell you you're wrong, but I can't force you to see it any more than I'm telling you I think you're wrong now and you don't see it. If the Orthodox Church told you you were wrong and you disagreed, you'd be out of there. (Or else perhaps you swore to always agree with whatever the bishop tells you even if he abuses his power because he's the bishop.) Orthodoxy doesn't solve the problem of people being wrong either. People who think they're the Church either work it out with others who think they're the Church (proving they are) or they don't forever (proving they're not). Simple.
TLDR: You're free to proceed any way you like. If you think I might be worth a little more of your evanglistic effort, we might try again with how catechesis works. How do I submit to the bishop or catechist, what's being asked of me, what do I do with my conscience? We might also work on those two positions I identified. Is Metropolitan Kallistos right to say "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not"? Is Theophan the Recluse right to say "Christ is here, in our Orthodox Church, and He is not in any other church"? Orthodox disagree interpreting those two! If you don't want to answer my questions, it's been enlightening, but brothers seeking truth together ought to be able to get past a little hiccup like my talkativity.
You telling me I'm wrong is your subjective opinion. Truth doesn't care about subjective opinions. The Orthodox Church holds the objective standard for what the true faith is - not single individuals in or outside of it. The Church has a living body that is visible and mystical just like you have a living body - both physical and spiritual. It has a head just like you have a head. The difference is that the head of your body is your human mind, and the head of the Church is Christ. This is why Protestants worship the self, their own head and not Christ. Because you can't be in one with the head if you're not part of the body. You have to submit to the Church thus letting Christ be your head (through the bishops and priests who were given their office by Him - apostolic succession).
Here's the correct (only) path to knowing God:
This mirrors God's plan for our salvation: God the Father sent Christ who then sent the Spirit.
Go to an EO Church (if you're in the US, I'd suggest ROCOR) and talk to a priest about becoming a catechumen. If the priest is well-disposed you may ask him questions that you're struggling with. Beside that read the early Church fathers and look up Orthodox channels on youtube like Orthodox Ethos, Jay Dyer, Patristic Nectar, Orthodox Wisdom, Father Spyridon.
Both are correct and are not contradictory if understood in context. There are no other churches because the Church is only one. What the metropolitan says has to do with normative and extra normative ways to be united to the Church. There's no salvation outside the Church but God can work out ways that are not understood by us and are not revealed to us. The normative is baptism and chrismation. The extra normative is God uniting people to the Church outside the rituals and proper worship, because He knows their heart - this of course is the exception to the rule and in no way suggests that people outside of the Church should hope to be saved by exception. We have a duty to seek God and enter the Church through the front door. The exception is for people who have a good reason in God's eyes why they didn't do that.
The best example of such extra normative union to the Church is the righteous thief on the cross. This is central to the Orthodox tradition, hence the Orthodox cross having the tipped line on the bottom, signifying the thieves crucified along with Jesus and their respective judgement. As Orthodox we follow what God has commanded through His Church but we can never know God's ways and we can't set boundaries to them.
So God can unite people to the Church extranormatively outside the rituals and Orthodox worship and we can't bound his ways. Thanks. Then you do feel qualified to explicate that answer, and we'd be better off just not arguing about the size of the exception.
But you don't feel qualified to answer about conscience from your own being born or catechized into Orthodoxy, you refer me to the bishop. Got it.
("Christ sent the Spirit"? Sounds like filioque to me! What is this change?)
But there it sounds like you know for certain that all Protestants are disconnected from extranormative unity. That sounds like arguing over the size of the exception, that's all.
When I investigated the question of conscience I concluded that two professing Christ who agree they disagree on an essential (i.e. where at least one is not in communion with the other) do not get to judge each other. The division is from the Lord, to show which of you are approved. If they agree it shows they're both approved, if either goes bad it shows he is disapproved, if either dies in the separated state approval will be shown by the later direction of the movement living (ultimately reuniting) or dying. I see nothing that commends one side over the other: not succession, not titles, not size, not depth, not tradition, not hierarchy, not even appeal to logic as humans experience it. Only the Logos can show it and he waits patiently to do so, often by other means than human formality.
Now that tested conclusion pits me against churches that say we have not only unique distinctives but also an automatic superiority (the thing Rome got in trouble for in fact). "We are #1 in humility." Each distinctive has its own commendation, like a name only the bearer understands, and so if anything has a "superiority" they all do in their own ways. The argument "who is greatest" is ultimately answered by God showing all his children are greatest in their own different way as he ordained, as we humbly realize the imago Dei in everyone.
That may be enough to roll with. Since you exposit Kallistos, I can limit the issue to whether you seem to weaken that exposition separately. Someday I will interview both Orthodox and Catholic to see if their claims have some compatibility with each other, because for every appeal you make a Catholic has made the same appeal. Protestants typically reject "sheep-stealing" and so I generally stick with where my family grew up because I have vital connection. If someone says I must lose something I have in Christ to join their church, that's suspicious, and my perception of what is loss must be tested as well as their own perception of gain.