วีดีโอ

You should check out the new psalter the OCA just released - a joint project of St. Vlad's and St. Tikhon's!

thank you Roman.

I agree with you that the RSV 2 CE is an excellent Bible and would make for a great Orthodox Bible. I use it as well as the ESV with Orthodox Apocrypha. Schuyler (Quentel Bible with Apocrypha), Anglican Liturgy Press Bible, and Cambridge (Diadem with Apocrypha) all publish the ESV with a full Orthodox Apocrypha. And if the RSV 2 CE is one's only Bible, Cambridge through LEGO in Italy publishes a very nice sewn and bound hardcover ESV Orthodox Apocrypha to round out the RSV 2 CE. The ESV is an excellent translation and is a mild revision of the RSV just as the RSV 2 CE is.

Please talk more about your time at Clear Creek and your experience with Benedictine spirituality. It seems quite complicated to live out a Benedictine vocation in the Orthodox Church when there is only one monastery, and it isn't cloistered. I also 100% agree that the Western Rite doesn't fully feel 'Western' and needs to be de-Anglicanized and de-Byzantinized.

As someone who started my Orthodox journey as a staunch WR supporter, I no longer support the movement. I have many reasons for this, but one reason is because I have learned to look deeper in western heritage. Before we were eastern and western, we were all Roman Christians. And as it turns out, before the developments of the late middle ages and Renaissance, western Churches were quite close in style and character to "eastern" Orthodox Churches today. Much of what people consider "western" style is relatively recent developments. Thus I find a more connection to my western heritage, and most importantly, to my ancient Christian heritage in an "eastern" Orthodox Church

Very interesting video! Loved your chanting - especially the Salve Regina!

Dude…’dale in a tin can’ is going to sue you for stealing his signature sips!

Have you come across the 'Western Orthodox Church'? Not to be taken with too much sincerity, as they are uncanonical, but an interesting movement (Communion of Churches) nonetheless.

26 seconds in, looking interesting. Hi Roman! Hope the family is well.

ROCOR WR does tend to be more Byzantinified, my question is for you is have you heard of the Antiochian Western Rite?

I enjoy the EOB. Im very excited for the New Rome Press version with the Septuligent that comes out next year. I'm excited to have a full Orthodox cannon in one volume besides the OSB.

The original Douay Rheims (circa1582-1609) was not a translation, it was a transliteration designed for those brave men who desired martyrdom through priesthood spreading Catholicism in perfidious Albion. Many of these men had very little classical education and it was a way of familiarising them with the Latin Vulgate in super quick time. Obviously this was not going to be a great translation for public consumption. What Bishop Challoner did was translate it into the modern English of his day (1749-1752). As a student of that period of English (Swift, Johnson, Boswell, Pope, Dryden), I think it is masterful and better than (and less theologically suspect than) the 1769 KJV. Ps 22 may not be Challoner's strongest point, but the Psalter on the whole is beautiful and flows with great poetry, provided you have a little pause at every comma!

Thou art more patient than I. I had for a while a physically beautiful edition of the NLT, and found it mostly repulsive. I remember how disappointed I was when the NRSV came out. I had studied the Old Testament with Walter Harrelson, the OT editor of that version, and he was a very charming man. But the best translations are in the footnotes, not what anyone hears when the text is used as the lectionary. I guess my project similar to yours is to reread Jerome's Vulgate. It is, as you said, a beautiful translation, and for my birthday I gave myself a beautiful ediont of it. And yes, Ezekiel is wonderful, and the Orthodox Liturgy is Revelation incarnate.

Love bibles , always like the idea of having a few different translations at hand , never a bad idea ,

Orthobros are a real problem for Orthodoxy...........they dish it out but can't take it.

The Western Bible is based on The Masoretic text, about 1000 years old. But the OLDEST Bible (Old Testament) is actually based on The Paleo Hebrew text, some 2500 years older ! Septuagint is actually based on The Paleo Hebrew text. And the oldest and most accurate text of The New Testament is Aramaic-based, - not Greek ! But there are a few finer points that we need to make. First, however useful it is for us today, Lord Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the New Testament writers would have NEVER quoted from the Septuagint - never ever ! There is not even a shred of evidence of that happening. Second, the authentic Septuagint burned down in a fire at Ptolemy's library in Alexandria. Third, luckily, a copy of The LXX managed to go to the Greek world, before the fire. Fourth, The Greeks "sanitized" it quite a bit, and that is why we have some strange additions to it that do not add up at all as Scripture. However there are many instances where in The Septuagint many passages remained intact. Fifth, and most important, The ORIGINAL Septuagint was translated from the ORIGINAL PALEO HEBREW TEXT, penned down in the PALEO HEBREW SCRIPT, which, as I mentioned above, is some 2500 years older than the Masoretic Text, not to mention that The MT was somewhat "sanitized" as well by the Judean scribes. But ALL the Old Testament quotations of Lord Jesus, Paul and the rest of NT writers are in perfect concordance with the records of The LXX, the only reason being because it was translated from scrolls a lot older and much closer to authenticity than the Masoretic Text. I am not familiar with the Ethiopian, Armenian and a few others - Versions of The Bible, but I think they also follow the more ancient Paleo HEBREW Text and not the Masoretic. I am working on a new revision of The Bible and I am making full use of both the records of The Paleo Hebrew, AND the Aramaic Version of The new Testament and a great difference will be seen. Yes, it will look strange at first, But I am sure the honest believers will love it. It is now in a "beta" stage, I will probably be ready by the yearend, but if you want it right now, I can send it to you. Please send me a message at nairelavataoldotcom, (please note that you have to decode my address - TH-cam will not accept to send and address in clear !) - subject: 2024 Beta Digital Bible - and an electronic copy is yours for the asking. But the final copy will be ready by the New Year. And it will be absolutely free. Choicest Blessings ! * My, I did not know that we have "Notifications" !!! Yes, I agree that I cannot "prove" that Paul did not quote from The Septuagint, but NEITHER can we prove that he did ! I am counting on the Aramaic, the Khabouris codex, and I do not find one trace of anything coming from a Greek document that Paul, Lord Jesus and the Gospel writers would have quoted from the LXX. I mean, com'on, at least by mistake we should see a "Theos", or Kirios, or anything of the sort - all we see is Alha (ELOHIM), Maran (LORD) and many authentic Aramaic words preserved even in the Greek manuscripts ! When Lord Jesus stood up to read, - did He use "The Septuagint" ? Hardly. He read from a scroll, perhaps Hebrew or Aramaic. YES- we no longer have any Paleo Hebrew documents, but we have a pretty poor version of a translation from Paleo Hebrew - The LXX. I haven't had a chance to check couple of other ancient translations of The Hebrew Bible (OT) but at least I am told that we have among the Dead Sea Scrolls many fragments that confirm that THERE WAS SUCH A THING LIKE PALEO HEBREW, - THEY EVEN SHOWED A FRAGMENT TRANSCRIBED INTO THE SQUARE SCRIPT, AT THE TIME OF MIGRATING TO THE ASHURY SCRIPT, AND THE FRAGMENT CONTAINED THE NAME OF THE "I AM", WHICH WAS (the only word) preserved in the Paleo Hebrew, even though the entire fragment was penned in the Ashuri ! That ought to tell us something. Reply

I am Lutheran, love my christian papists and easterners.

I know this is a weird comparison but you remind me of another researcher/youtuber I like: Janus Bifronz. Same attitude and similar face, but you don’t have to watch his questionable content, just trust me.

The viewpoint you present in this video would seem to invalidate the formats and proceedings of all the Church Councils, those occasions when bishops and theologians convened to debate ideas and to distinguish what is orthodox from what is not. Would you be more comfortable with a couple of the later councils of the Catholic Church in which dogma was defined by Papal fiat?

Just found your channel and sub'd. Great food for thought in today's contentious digital media sphere. Shoutouts again to @OrthodoxKyle.

When I bring up the point that the Filioque was introduced to England by St Theodore at the Council of Hatfield in 680, I often get a load of abuse from Orthodox commentators, and in one case I had a threat to delete my comment. I don’t see any effort from yourself to try to moderate matters. Yes, I can understand that what I say is awkward for the Orthodox to deal with, but I am just describing what actually happened. It is a little surprising considering that St Theodore was Greek. Real life is strange.

Orthodox discourse on TH-cam is full of talk about heretics, papists and papal Protestants. Now you are crying foul about Kyle. Well will there be any improvement from online Orthodoxy from now on?

The Orthodox claim that the Council of 879 is a valid Oecumenical Council despite the absence of delegates from Spain, Portugal or England. The Council apparently condemned the Filioque, these three countries being the early adopters of it. Any comments?

Former Lutheran here, about to celebrate the 10th anniversary of my Chrismation. To answer your question - Lutherans as individuals all seem entirely engaged fighting for or against homosexual clergy at this point. Anyone who has heard the word 'cessationism' is likely already looking into Orthodoxy as at least a stable alternative. The number of people involved in it anymore who can speak to the faith at even a 200 college course level are vanishingly few, and usually not the ones running the services. If you'd permit me to run with your ball for a bit... I think that line of inquiry, the one into the third person of the Trinity, is where the meat is. I'm not sure what it's like for RC's but in the protestant world probably the biggest theological issue I'd name is the one that attempts to stuff individuals into the job of the Holy Spirit. When you essentially don't believe in the big-C Church, His job - maintaining that Church - gets reduced to membership drives and praise bands, in an attempt to lure people in. The trouble with that is getting people to convert and attend liturgy isn't our job. It's the job of the Holy Spirit. All we can do is present information and make suggestions. We can't force anyone. But that's where I see the role of debate at this point. It's to try to get others to agree with our view. One of the reasons I've felt so at home for the last decade is because Orthodoxy is mercifully free of debate. Debate is also a wedge for driving in policies that aren't wanted. But Orthodoxy is what it is. And it's going to continue to be what it is. That was enough of a selling point for me - well, that plus the fact that the clergy knows what it's talking about and can usually recite exactly why something is and how it comports with the faith overall. Those aren't debate points - just overall facts. And it still took me 20 years after I was exposed to Orthodoxy to realize it, despite the best debate efforts of dear friends and family. It took some frank conversations with God for me to come to. And when I did, I realized I had spent 40 years as a baby crying for milk, and was suddenly surrounded by enough meat to last several lifetimes. (And to the reader who isn't Orthodox - may you someday, with the help of the Holy Spirit, get that joke.)

Pardon the dumb question. Are you part of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Couple things i think it's worth pointing out: Amongst American converts to Orthodoxy, Jay Dyer is the most mentioned in terms of influence. I know this based on personal experience and a large survey that was conducted. Aggresive debate tactics is very important and apparently effective. I think men are sick of the fake nice stuff. If We have different worldviews, Let's hammer it out like men. Debate has been highly effective. It's important to point out that after hearing a debate, it prompts people to go check out different things to read and think about and dig deeper. Glory to God for the online orthosphere churning out many converts. It takes a lot of guts to go out there and attack bad ideologies head on. Obviously if i believe my worldview is correct, which it is, then i would want everyone to come to believe it.

If I’m understanding you correctly, your point certainly isn’t that we ought to be skeptical of all truth claims. We can be confident in our ability to search for and come to the intellectual and spiritual knowledge of the truth with God’s help. The problem is that many people often mistake the content of Internet debates/“debunking” videos for actual knowledge, when in reality debates are geared toward presenting a highly limited and selective sampling of the evidence in order to persuade through the use of rhetoric. Am I on the right track? Love your channel!

Fellow counsel ☦️

Is it a sin to shave my head?

I was a Traditional Catholic too for many decades. I lost my belief in the papacy after realising that there had not been a Pope in my lifetime. I am 62 years old. If I can go back to 1958, then why not 1054?

Wouldnt the RSV use the critical text instead of the byzantine text? I'd like to see the Septuagint OT and a NT translates from the Byzantine NT manuscripts. Have you looked at the ancient faith study bible? Its a southern baptist publication but ive seen several Orthodox say its a great resource for church fathers commentary.

Excellent video! The Eastern Catholics are famous for saying they are either, "small 'o'" Orthodox or "Orthodox in communion with Rome." In either case, their existence is in function of the Orthodox Church. Additionally, I can't understand why Eastern Catholics would mimic something when you could simply join it? To what end? Any Eastern Catholics wish to enlighten me?

Much less chit-chat, more substance.

This is a great Bible. I love it. I’m a convert from the Episcopal church. This translation is well respected by numerous Orthodox priests and scholars.

Speaking of a clerical personality, at a largely convert parish in Chicago, the priest was a well-known speaker and writer, who drew a great many new Orthodox Christians. When eucharist was offered, three lines formed with a junior priest and a deacon serving in the second and third lines. The line of the primary priest was always longer, as if the body and blood of christ was more efficacious chalice.

Your Pater Noster at the end was on point!

Congrats on the baby! It’s a beautiful time to be alive, enjoy it brother!

I think the biggest scandal for me is the canonical irregularity of the jurisdictions in the US. This has been tempered by the fact that both parishes I've been a part of have had great relationships with the other jurisdictions locally. I'm also from a very convert-heavy parish in an area of the country with massive transplant population growth, so even if it is an Antiochian Parish, I have friends who have come from pretty much every jurisdiction. My original parish has a very wise priest who assigned converts to Cradle families so they could learn Greek Orthopraxy. Hes a Romanian himself and was always good at explaining this is the way we do things, the russians do it a little differently and thats ok. Current Parish (in a different state) is a convert-heavy Antiochian parish but our priest regularly does pan-orthodox vespers and DL. Many of the Older Greeks (in this town) stick to themselves, which is a shame, but many of the younger parishioners come to events and vespers with us and the Local ROCOR parish. I know in some places the relationships are not as warm, but here, generally speaking they are really good. Anecdotally speaking there is way more inter-parish comradery and unity between the 3 different Orthodox parishes than you have between even different mass times at the local Catholic Cathedral let alone between the Trads, NO (but kinda traditional) people and the NO litergical boomers in the local RC dioceese.

Leaving the RCC and entering the Orthodox Church this year is the best thing I ever did - thanks be to God. ☦☦☦

Hello, Protestant inquirer of 2 years here. I appreciate you bringing up some harder issues surrounding Orthodoxy and people's experience of it instead of glossing over certain things in an effort to paint the Church in a better light to outsiders. For better or worse, I feel I am at the cusp of ending my Orthodox journey because of frustrations regarding unity of the Church. It seems to me that the Orthodox Church is just "a church" with many problems, divisions, etc. Albeit, a beautiful, mostly theologically sound, and historic one. But best or favored isn't the same as only. I recognize Protestants and Orthodox/Catholics often mean different things by the word "church", but I hope you'll bear with me as I try to explain my rationale here. My intuition is that fewer and fewer people baptized into the Orthodox Church are actually maintaining the church phronema (a debatable topic of what this is), especially with the wave of converts and inquirers we see in America (myself included). So, there is a movement to preserve this phronema, but I'm not optimistic about the success of that over time... in any case, just the fact that the struggle is happening is enough to tell me that many Orthodox acknowledge that what unites them is something altogether immaterial. Everyone knows what the "Orthodox Church" is, but no one can define it in its fullness without appealing to something "abstract" or unquantifiable, like the fact that it's Christ's body or the fact that they seek to walk in the ways of the apostles and maintain the faith they were delivered or it encompasses the life of the Holy Spirit. Once you bring in anything more concrete than that (like who's in communion with each other or who listens to what bishop, teachings by specific church fathers, etc.), you run into exceptions to the rule, contradictions, politics, and divisions. So, I am questioning what all this means... my Protestant view of the church has always been that it is "invisible" in the sense that no one can pick a concrete quantifier and neatly identify all who are a part of Christ's body. The Holy Spirit is the invisible binder, which we can identify with in faith but not by any other physical means. I do see the Church as synonymous with "those people who are saved", because we can't be saved apart from being united with Christ. I think this is how many Protestants see the church, consciously or unconsciously. And many Orthodox too, acknowledge that we don't know how individuals will be judged by God. And yet, they can look at Protestants collectively and say they are not in the ark of salvation?? No... it just doesn't make sense to me. I'm rambling, but I hope you can understand at least some of what I'm trying to say. My goal in life is to love and serve the Lord and love and serve my neighbor all the days of my life. Soooooo many people know and love the Lord (enough to die for him!) "apart from the Church". If the fullness of the Orthodox Church is not necessary for this goal, why should I treat it like it is???