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:
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.
Exactly. If you want to learn about Orthodoxy you have to go to the physical Church and talk to the clergy. I can only reiterate the teachings of the Church and my opinions as an Orthodox layman. There's a hierarchy within the Church. You probably won't be talking to a bishop but to a priest who was ordained by the bishop. The bishops are those who have apostolic succession and lead the Church.
No. This is the Orthodox teaching of the Church Fathers. The filioque claims double hypostatic procession of the Spirit and it has to do with the origin of the Spirit. The Spirit spirates from the Father, not the Son. The Son sending the Spirit is the Spirit originating from Him.
I knew you would go there and that's why I emphasized extranormative union applies to exceptions where there's good reason for the person not to be received in the Church through normative means. This is not the case with Protestants today, who have access to the Church but choose not to come to it out of their own volition and because they persist in their heterodox teachings.
Leading sheep back to the Church is sheep saving actually. In th end you have to choose between the world and Christ. If the Truth leads you away from your community and family, so be it.