Protestant: Believe in Christ, get baptized, and you’ll be filled with the Holy Spirit. Which will guide you in understanding the scriptures. Also Protestants: The Saints and Church Fathers have no basis for their claims, and have established a tradition of men! *one thousand facepalms*
@@TheMorning_Son Which is why we must bring everything back to the Scriptures to judge its truthfulness, even our own present conclusions, and the contradictory ones of the Fathers. Semper reformanda.
@@jerryb3172 definitely agreed. Shabir Ali, Molyneux, classical theist guy, all didn't grasp the concept or argument being made to them, let alone argue back coherently.
@@karlmiller2447 If you mean that Jay Dyer and/or the Orthodox Church are an ''extention'' of unholy Rome, then you have no clue as to what you are saying and to how imbecile such a claim is. A man who spends innumerable hours to debate, refute and clarify to others the vastness of the heresies and errors in the west's crooked theology cannot possibly be an extension of Rome, which granted indeed has become quite unholy in the last one thousand and more years, since it was cut off from the Body of Christ.
@@poincareseifert1673 You only think he refutes people because nobody responds to him. 1,000 years of walking hand-in-hand with Rome and you don't think the Orthodox is an extention of Rome. Both refute each other and we refute both of you. Both are very unholy mystics who follow the traditions of men. Both making claims that they have the true traditions.
@@mackie55 Precisely, brother. It's what vernacular English calls ''speaking out of one's butt'', here for the obvious reason of there not being a more historically informed and better seated higher faculty out of which for one to speak. Had there been such a faculty at hand, we wouldn't be here spewing ''orthodoxes are like catholixes, they iz all apostatized, coz they has tradition and shieeet'' type rank imbecilities around on the internet.
@@poincareseifert1673 it's still poop it's just another toilet. The same arguments you make the Roman Catholics make. That's why you went right to talking about Luther and Calvin. The next thing you will try to do is assert your authority through tradition. Just because there was a schism in 1054, that doesn't mean you and the Romans don't hold many of the same doctrines and have much of the same theology.
@@karlmiller2447 For the umpteenth time, you unknowing and ignorant man, at this point of time there is actually very little in common between Orthodox theology and the roman conceptions on this or that. And it matters little whether there is 50% similarity or 20% similarity, the whole point is about who is keeping the RIGHT tradition, namely that instituted by the Lord Himself and passed down to the Apostles directly. Every single body of religious practitioners will have one tradition they are in line with, whether they realise it or not, the latins with their papal tradition, the protestants with their ''learned scholars and theologians'' (which is why I brought up Calvin and Luther, point lost on you). Everybody has a tradition, the question is which is the right one. There might be various rivaling arguments as to that question, that sound similar, but there is only one historical truth: that what the primary Church was doing and what it taught is the same as what Orthodoxy is doing to this day. No clown or tango masses, no cheesy pop music praise&grape juice drinking forms of ''worship''. I have no intention of asserting any authority, you can feel free to set up your private new sect, if you so desired. However, no matter how much resentment you might have against the latins, that doesn't mean your position is automatically correct and that anyone else who would seem to bear the slightest resemblance (but only to those with a frightfully shallow understanding) is in the wrong. These being said, you can go on deluding yourself that you are a possessor of the genuine tradition and see to what joy it will take you eventually. The time I take in trying to reply to men blinded by their own furious misconceptions has come to an end.
@1:25:30 Orthodox Holy Tradition doesn't evolve (like RC), we say that Tradition is explicated and further honed in on and clarified. Imagine looking at a stained glass that is out of focus, and over time, what the church fathers and councils do, is bring that image into clearer and clearer focus. So it's not a different image, the image itself isn't evolving. Our understanding it is becoming more precise over time. That's different from the RC doctrine (Cardinal Newman) of the evolution of dogma. Which is the idea that there is a seed that begins the church and then the seed turns into a tree - that's how they justify the papacy and all these innovations. Now there are little t traditions that change over time, like Russians doing things different from Antiochians, but that's not the same thing as evolving. So a canon of a council say..in the year 600, that is not present in the early church is not the same thing as divine revelation. So canons are custom. They are the normative custom law of the church and they are necessary. They are not the same thing as divine revelation, because canons come and go. They are temporal; many of them don't even make sense anymore, nations or bishop-orates that doesn't even exist anymore. One of the things that rigorous schismatic groups do is they make the mistake that canons are the equivalent of divine revelation, it would absurd to go down that route and it leads to schism. .... So when we reply to the Protestant, if the church enacts a feast or something like this, that is NOT evolving tradition. That's just how tradition works, because tradition is a living reality. It's not a dead fossil. It's a perfect continuity with the past, that's present with the now, and continues into the future. So that's why we have new Saints. If we have a new Saint is not an evolving of tradition. That's how tradition works. Tradition is not either ocified in the past as a relic, nor is it something that evolves into new meanings. There is a transcending of dialectics here that's true across the board. The Trinity is both One and Many. But God is not just eternal and outside of time, he's also within time. So the changeableness/progression & living aspect of the church is important. Most schismatics lose that aspect of it and hence fall into the idea that there was some perfect thing in the past and that at arbitrary xyz date is where everything was lost, and I'm the last guy; keeper of the true flame. So we must avoid the error of both the rigourist, the error of the liberal, schismatic. The pharisees and the sadducee - Those are two errors that we want to avoid. The way we refute the Protestant is to point out #1 he has traditions himself, so he is a hypocrite. He has extra-canonical, non biblical tradition he relies on. Mainly how he determines the bible he accepts, from the Orthodox church of the 1st millennium. Therefore he is a hypocrite.
The classical protestant is not to reject tradition but to simply not hold it as equally authoritative as the Bible, so your refutation falls on its head,
I tried asking this, but my comment got banned or blocked. I sincerely want to hear Jay's research on it. This is what I think. The question is difficult to answer because it so subjective and makes everything subjective and based on community belief. Christian Revelation is also referred to as catholic consciousness and is voiced through dogmas and are also supported through canons. Certainly, Christian Revelation may be an absolute truth that Christian Revelation is revealing. This still does not absolve Christian Revelation from the subjective nature of revelation, because you cannot prove revelation about God through experimentation. This is precisely the root of conflict that hard headed people, including Jay, who refuse to acknowledge and would rather argue about their groups belief than acknowledge. Christian Revelation is the foundation of all truth about God and the Church and is revealed by the Holy Spirit through Church.
@@leavesofpeace9149 not sure I understand what you meant. what do you mean by "argue about their groups belief" and how this is the opposite of what you are saying about revelation? I mean, even if there's a subjective thing (I think it is right, this is faith, you won't prove it), it doesn't imply how church could know something, how holy Spirit will work through it. If you have faith church is being guided by hs and trust church fathers for example, someone could say things that they believed and you didn't know, and this would be an argument (this can be used for example on a debate between rc x orthodox, because both share some faith), right? If you prove apostles believed and preached something, it doesn't prove it is God's revelation, unless you have faith in apostles being guided. There's place for teaching, argumentations, apologetics (not sure if you are against it, but I thought it could be the case).
My question was just because I thought councils were seen like scriptures, containing divine revelation. And indeed, I was asking about divine revelation as if it could be listed and as you are saying, maybe it isn't the case. But I thought it included at least scriptures+tradition+councils. I think even if this kind of list doesn't contains the whole revelation, a list of "concrete" Revelations could be done.
@@leavesofpeace9149 Wait, do you think Church changed beliefs (it is against what apostle said)? Or just that there were heretics inside and church accused the heresy later? (this last one is not problematic). And as I said, revelation is not proved. I have watched some of jays videos and I didn't see this intention to prove revelation. Actually, I saw him criticizing views such as natural theology (which include this trying of proving revelation through science) and others because of incoherence, not because of his presuppositions , so for example he can argue about protestantism being false because they say to deny every tradition, but keep canon that is received through tradition. Also, protestant would say they can know the revelation through historical methods, which is a problem too. What I said is, if two people have faith in something and one knows more about it than the other, it can be used to argue (church fathers is a good example, most people don't know so much about them but if there's something most of them believed, they will trust it because of their faith, the revelation is not being proved as revelation, it is just a teaching... if someone will trust in what church fathers believed, it is about faith). It is like any teaching. How could anyone teaches other in church? Argumentations are not evil, we see them even in the bible. If I say church fathers are trustful and I believe in X and someone shows me that church fathers actually rejected X, then I have a problem (I have to reject X or my trust in church fathers). About rejecting people who disagrees about something, I dont know what you are talking about. Of course there are limits. Non trinitarian aren't orthodox. But of course there are things that are not very clear and I think most people wouldn't have problems with disagreements. What kind of revelation are you saying?
@@leavesofpeace9149 About God's nature, I thought it seemed superfluous too, but then I realized it matters for a understanding of christology, what's the whole of Christ for humanity and other basic things for faith. The question itself looks a small thing, but if you see groups that took different views , it derived a lot of bigger problems. What he does when talks about this things is the same that others did (he actually explains the points other did to show others views were false). If I was there in that time, I probably would say that others views makes sense too and would not reject it (as I did before understanding some things jay explained). After it is explained and you see the implications you realize that maybe there's a problem to be solved, just like nestorianism as you mentioned. About "think they know the truth" , this isn't a problem. Everything you believe you think is the truth, right? About being superior because of that, I know intelectual work is related to temptation of pride. I wouldn't judge jay for this. There's a limit that someone with pride is annoying, but this definitely isn't Jay's case. About not being part of revelation, I didn't get it. How can you be sure it is not part of revelation? People using logic as I said is not a problem, they always do, even to show something they received as revelation (you can infer things from bible for example). It isnt pure logic. Afaik it uses scriptures and traditions. Just like any issue when there are heretics. People from church would debate (heresy is usually based and scriptures or traditions too) and use logic , just like any debate. This doesn't mean hs is not guiding church as if it was just a human thing, he can guide these debates. Now, if you are saying the issues jay is debating weren't still established by church (other views aren't formally heretical), I don't know, what point he argued you're saying? In any case, if there are different views it can be debated, there's no problem. If you are saying he is accusing other views of heresy while it is not a established thing yet, ok , maybe it is a mistake, but I don't know how these things are done, heretic couldn't be called heretic before a council solves the issue?
The orthodox study Bible is a good version and you can download a digital version to check it out before buying it in paper copy. Also, to be honest, the Douay Rheims Bible was the Catholic version of the English translated from Jerome’s Latin vulgate, to counter king James in English, and I still think it’s the best. You can download that, as well, to check it out if you need a link let me know
What do you mean by "converged"? Perhaps compromised? ROCOR is the most consistently Traditional in this country (in my experience), but there are GOOD Orthodox Churches in all jurisdictions and bad ones. If you ask the priest 1. Are Freemasons allowed to be members of the Church? (If they say NO, then so far so good) 2. Were Adam and Eve historical people? (If YES then still good)
Appreciate all the comments. @Don Don is exactly right, compromised is exactly what I meant. And yes I definitely want to be in s traditional church but if I am not an expert in the tradition that’s hard for me to know. I like those questions as suggestions though
As someone born outside of 🇺🇸 and living there I'd recommend OCA parish, and if not possible than look for orthodox parish with large numbers of converts.
@@KaiserChili All Orthodox churches are traditional churches, far more traditional than any trad cat parish. That's the beauty of the Orthodox Church: there aren't "traditional" or "not traditional" churches
Trixie Obbit there is no development of doctrine as the papists claim as orthodox tradition is based on the fathers’ teaching that comes from them having a greater purification of soul, illumination of the nous and deification of their person. Hence, this occurs in saints regardless of time or epoch and allows them to experience and articulate Gods revelation as Saint Palamas taught. Hence, while fathers may develop a greater articulation (particularly in relation to new or renewed heresies and their necessary refutation) of revelation/doctrine, that doctrine itself doesn’t develop and this concept was an apologia of changing doctrine to claim Roman Papism still possessed the apostolic faith. Is that more clear?
Trixie Obbit inwould wven go further to state that some catholic authors e.g. von Dollinger were accurate when they said that Newman would have been condemned if he wrote in French or German. Also, his close affiliation with Merry del Val gave him the most powerful advocate possible in the Papal Curia. This is often overlooked by not only orthodox but Catholics who are unaware of the situation of the time
Be sure to like, share and subscribe!
@@laudetur1090 amidtheruins1453 on TH-cam, its where he gets all his Original Soundtrack from.
@JayDyer where’s the article of yours on ikons?
More GOLD from Mr. Dyer. Thank you and God bless!
I like this music, sounds like Jan Hammer Miami Vice and the 1980's
One of the most based icons I've ever seen. I love it.
Doesn’t get more based than this one, sir 😆
Getting a protestant to understand that the invisible church idea isn't real is quite possibly the most painfully annoying argument I go through.
Which church is right? West or East?
@@xJR0G15xThe church who is in line with the first thousand years of Christianity
Starts at 19:46.
Cool, nice one jay! Don't stop making videos they are unique on here
Protestant: Believe in Christ, get baptized, and you’ll be filled with the Holy Spirit. Which will guide you in understanding the scriptures.
Also Protestants: The Saints and Church Fathers have no basis for their claims, and have established a tradition of men!
*one thousand facepalms*
Jay even admitted the Fathers made mistakes from time to time.
@@TheMorning_Son Which is why we must bring everything back to the Scriptures to judge its truthfulness, even our own present conclusions, and the contradictory ones of the Fathers. Semper reformanda.
*Who
@@LeoRegumSola Interpretatio
@@LeoRegum this is funny.
You should debate Jeff durbin. He’s sola and a follower of James white. He was also on tinfoil podcast.
He would definitely love a debate,
@@TommyGunzzz I doubt that. James white probably told him do not debate Jay Dyer 😂
@@jerryb3172 definitely agreed. Shabir Ali, Molyneux, classical theist guy, all didn't grasp the concept or argument being made to them, let alone argue back coherently.
"if you look through your scope to shoot a bunny, are you suddenly a gnostic?" - Jay Dyer
i was thinking lately that i wish you would do a show like this. how to evangelize protestants especially haha
@@karlmiller2447 If you mean that Jay Dyer and/or the Orthodox Church are an ''extention'' of unholy Rome, then you have no clue as to what you are saying and to how imbecile such a claim is. A man who spends innumerable hours to debate, refute and clarify to others the vastness of the heresies and errors in the west's crooked theology cannot possibly be an extension of Rome, which granted indeed has become quite unholy in the last one thousand and more years, since it was cut off from the Body of Christ.
@@poincareseifert1673 You only think he refutes people because nobody responds to him. 1,000 years of walking hand-in-hand with Rome and you don't think the Orthodox is an extention of Rome. Both refute each other and we refute both of you. Both are very unholy mystics who follow the traditions of men. Both making claims that they have the true traditions.
@@mackie55 Precisely, brother. It's what vernacular English calls ''speaking out of one's butt'', here for the obvious reason of there not being a more historically informed and better seated higher faculty out of which for one to speak. Had there been such a faculty at hand, we wouldn't be here spewing ''orthodoxes are like catholixes, they iz all apostatized, coz they has tradition and shieeet'' type rank imbecilities around on the internet.
@@poincareseifert1673 it's still poop it's just another toilet. The same arguments you make the Roman Catholics make. That's why you went right to talking about Luther and Calvin. The next thing you will try to do is assert your authority through tradition. Just because there was a schism in 1054, that doesn't mean you and the Romans don't hold many of the same doctrines and have much of the same theology.
@@karlmiller2447 For the umpteenth time, you unknowing and ignorant man, at this point of time there is actually very little in common between Orthodox theology and the roman conceptions on this or that. And it matters little whether there is 50% similarity or 20% similarity, the whole point is about who is keeping the RIGHT tradition, namely that instituted by the Lord Himself and passed down to the Apostles directly. Every single body of religious practitioners will have one tradition they are in line with, whether they realise it or not, the latins with their papal tradition, the protestants with their ''learned scholars and theologians'' (which is why I brought up Calvin and Luther, point lost on you). Everybody has a tradition, the question is which is the right one. There might be various rivaling arguments as to that question, that sound similar, but there is only one historical truth: that what the primary Church was doing and what it taught is the same as what Orthodoxy is doing to this day. No clown or tango masses, no cheesy pop music praise&grape juice drinking forms of ''worship''.
I have no intention of asserting any authority, you can feel free to set up your private new sect, if you so desired.
However, no matter how much resentment you might have against the latins, that doesn't mean your position is automatically correct and that anyone else who would seem to bear the slightest resemblance (but only to those with a frightfully shallow understanding) is in the wrong. These being said, you can go on deluding yourself that you are a possessor of the genuine tradition and see to what joy it will take you eventually. The time I take in trying to reply to men blinded by their own furious misconceptions has come to an end.
@1:25:30 Orthodox Holy Tradition doesn't evolve (like RC), we say that Tradition is explicated and further honed in on and clarified. Imagine looking at a stained glass that is out of focus, and over time, what the church fathers and councils do, is bring that image into clearer and clearer focus. So it's not a different image, the image itself isn't evolving. Our understanding it is becoming more precise over time. That's different from the RC doctrine (Cardinal Newman) of the evolution of dogma. Which is the idea that there is a seed that begins the church and then the seed turns into a tree - that's how they justify the papacy and all these innovations. Now there are little t traditions that change over time, like Russians doing things different from Antiochians, but that's not the same thing as evolving. So a canon of a council say..in the year 600, that is not present in the early church is not the same thing as divine revelation. So canons are custom. They are the normative custom law of the church and they are necessary. They are not the same thing as divine revelation, because canons come and go. They are temporal; many of them don't even make sense anymore, nations or bishop-orates that doesn't even exist anymore. One of the things that rigorous schismatic groups do is they make the mistake that canons are the equivalent of divine revelation, it would absurd to go down that route and it leads to schism.
....
So when we reply to the Protestant, if the church enacts a feast or something like this, that is NOT evolving tradition. That's just how tradition works, because tradition is a living reality. It's not a dead fossil. It's a perfect continuity with the past, that's present with the now, and continues into the future. So that's why we have new Saints. If we have a new Saint is not an evolving of tradition. That's how tradition works. Tradition is not either ocified in the past as a relic, nor is it something that evolves into new meanings.
There is a transcending of dialectics here that's true across the board. The Trinity is both One and Many. But God is not just eternal and outside of time, he's also within time. So the changeableness/progression & living aspect of the church is important. Most schismatics lose that aspect of it and hence fall into the idea that there was some perfect thing in the past and that at arbitrary xyz date is where everything was lost, and I'm the last guy; keeper of the true flame.
So we must avoid the error of both the rigourist, the error of the liberal, schismatic. The pharisees and the sadducee - Those are two errors that we want to avoid.
The way we refute the Protestant is to point out #1 he has traditions himself, so he is a hypocrite. He has extra-canonical, non biblical tradition he relies on. Mainly how he determines the bible he accepts, from the Orthodox church of the 1st millennium. Therefore he is a hypocrite.
The classical protestant is not to reject tradition but to simply not hold it as equally authoritative as the Bible, so your refutation falls on its head,
@@user-jy5qm8nc9mthen all you have to ask them is where the Bible came from
Can I get the link to Jay's article on iconography in the Bible? I have the hardest time finding these articles on his site.
What's the "infallible divine revelation" for orthodoxy? It doesn't include councils? Canons of councils ≠ councils?
I tried asking this, but my comment got banned or blocked. I sincerely want to hear Jay's research on it.
This is what I think.
The question is difficult to answer because it so subjective and makes everything subjective and based on community belief. Christian Revelation is also referred to as catholic consciousness and is voiced through dogmas and are also supported through canons.
Certainly, Christian Revelation may be an absolute truth that Christian Revelation is revealing. This still does not absolve Christian Revelation from the subjective nature of revelation, because you cannot prove revelation about God through experimentation. This is precisely the root of conflict that hard headed people, including Jay, who refuse to acknowledge and would rather argue about their groups belief than acknowledge.
Christian Revelation is the foundation of all truth about God and the Church and is revealed by the Holy Spirit through Church.
@@leavesofpeace9149 not sure I understand what you meant. what do you mean by "argue about their groups belief" and how this is the opposite of what you are saying about revelation? I mean, even if there's a subjective thing (I think it is right, this is faith, you won't prove it), it doesn't imply how church could know something, how holy Spirit will work through it. If you have faith church is being guided by hs and trust church fathers for example, someone could say things that they believed and you didn't know, and this would be an argument (this can be used for example on a debate between rc x orthodox, because both share some faith), right?
If you prove apostles believed and preached something, it doesn't prove it is God's revelation, unless you have faith in apostles being guided. There's place for teaching, argumentations, apologetics (not sure if you are against it, but I thought it could be the case).
My question was just because I thought councils were seen like scriptures, containing divine revelation.
And indeed, I was asking about divine revelation as if it could be listed and as you are saying, maybe it isn't the case. But I thought it included at least scriptures+tradition+councils. I think even if this kind of list doesn't contains the whole revelation, a list of "concrete" Revelations could be done.
@@leavesofpeace9149 Wait, do you think Church changed beliefs (it is against what apostle said)? Or just that there were heretics inside and church accused the heresy later? (this last one is not problematic).
And as I said, revelation is not proved. I have watched some of jays videos and I didn't see this intention to prove revelation. Actually, I saw him criticizing views such as natural theology (which include this trying of proving revelation through science) and others because of incoherence, not because of his presuppositions , so for example he can argue about protestantism being false because they say to deny every tradition, but keep canon that is received through tradition. Also, protestant would say they can know the revelation through historical methods, which is a problem too.
What I said is, if two people have faith in something and one knows more about it than the other, it can be used to argue (church fathers is a good example, most people don't know so much about them but if there's something most of them believed, they will trust it because of their faith, the revelation is not being proved as revelation, it is just a teaching... if someone will trust in what church fathers believed, it is about faith). It is like any teaching. How could anyone teaches other in church? Argumentations are not evil, we see them even in the bible. If I say church fathers are trustful and I believe in X and someone shows me that church fathers actually rejected X, then I have a problem (I have to reject X or my trust in church fathers).
About rejecting people who disagrees about something, I dont know what you are talking about. Of course there are limits. Non trinitarian aren't orthodox. But of course there are things that are not very clear and I think most people wouldn't have problems with disagreements. What kind of revelation are you saying?
@@leavesofpeace9149
About God's nature, I thought it seemed superfluous too, but then I realized it matters for a understanding of christology, what's the whole of Christ for humanity and other basic things for faith. The question itself looks a small thing, but if you see groups that took different views , it derived a lot of bigger problems. What he does when talks about this things is the same that others did (he actually explains the points other did to show others views were false). If I was there in that time, I probably would say that others views makes sense too and would not reject it (as I did before understanding some things jay explained). After it is explained and you see the implications you realize that maybe there's a problem to be solved, just like nestorianism as you mentioned.
About "think they know the truth" , this isn't a problem. Everything you believe you think is the truth, right? About being superior because of that, I know intelectual work is related to temptation of pride. I wouldn't judge jay for this. There's a limit that someone with pride is annoying, but this definitely isn't Jay's case.
About not being part of revelation, I didn't get it. How can you be sure it is not part of revelation? People using logic as I said is not a problem, they always do, even to show something they received as revelation (you can infer things from bible for example). It isnt pure logic. Afaik it uses scriptures and traditions. Just like any issue when there are heretics. People from church would debate (heresy is usually based and scriptures or traditions too) and use logic , just like any debate. This doesn't mean hs is not guiding church as if it was just a human thing, he can guide these debates. Now, if you are saying the issues jay is debating weren't still established by church (other views aren't formally heretical), I don't know, what point he argued you're saying? In any case, if there are different views it can be debated, there's no problem. If you are saying he is accusing other views of heresy while it is not a established thing yet, ok , maybe it is a mistake, but I don't know how these things are done, heretic couldn't be called heretic before a council solves the issue?
Music by ...Mitherans 1453..??
how can I find you on discord?
I want to read the bible, what version should I read?
King James Version
@@jamesers99 LOL get outta here
@@xxxmmm3812 get back in the kitchen.
King James is old English. I prefer ESV and NIV, even Christian..? Translation
The orthodox study Bible is a good version and you can download a digital version to check it out before buying it in paper copy. Also, to be honest, the Douay Rheims Bible was the Catholic version of the English translated from Jerome’s Latin vulgate, to counter king James in English, and I still think it’s the best. You can download that, as well, to check it out if you need a link let me know
I want to start going to an Orthodox Church but how do I know if a church is converged or not?
What do you mean by converged?
What do you mean by "converged"? Perhaps compromised? ROCOR is the most consistently Traditional in this country (in my experience), but there are GOOD Orthodox Churches in all jurisdictions and bad ones. If you ask the priest 1. Are Freemasons allowed to be members of the Church? (If they say NO, then so far so good) 2. Were Adam and Eve historical people? (If YES then still good)
Appreciate all the comments. @Don Don is exactly right, compromised is exactly what I meant. And yes I definitely want to be in s traditional church but if I am not an expert in the tradition that’s hard for me to know. I like those questions as suggestions though
As someone born outside of 🇺🇸 and living there I'd recommend OCA parish, and if not possible than look for orthodox parish with large numbers of converts.
@@KaiserChili All Orthodox churches are traditional churches, far more traditional than any trad cat parish. That's the beauty of the Orthodox Church: there aren't "traditional" or "not traditional" churches
Tradition doesn’t evolve. Tradition is more clearly articulated. There is a development of articulation, a la Vincent Lérins
Larry Cera Which view of tradition is that? Roman Catholic?
Trixie Obbit ofthodox tradition
Trixie Obbit there is no development of doctrine as the papists claim as orthodox tradition is based on the fathers’ teaching that comes from them having a greater purification of soul, illumination of the nous and deification of their person. Hence, this occurs in saints regardless of time or epoch and allows them to experience and articulate Gods revelation as Saint Palamas taught. Hence, while fathers may develop a greater articulation (particularly in relation to new or renewed heresies and their necessary refutation) of revelation/doctrine, that doctrine itself doesn’t develop and this concept was an apologia of changing doctrine to claim Roman Papism still possessed the apostolic faith. Is that more clear?
Trixie Obbit inwould wven go further to state that some catholic authors e.g. von Dollinger were accurate when they said that Newman would have been condemned if he wrote in French or German. Also, his close affiliation with Merry del Val gave him the most powerful advocate possible in the Papal Curia. This is often overlooked by not only orthodox but Catholics who are unaware of the situation of the time
@@larrycera9276 Hi Larry, thanks for your explanation, very helpful.
He says "that's retarded" an awful lot for being an Orthodox. Do they have confession in orthodoxy ?
derka Is it a sin to say a thought is retarded?
Yes
please read the church fathers, they have some, language for their debate opponents
secondly "he's mean!!!!" doesn't address any points he made
Starts at 20:50
Starts at 21:00