Dyer's responses to this have predictably been about ecumenism, Bulgakov, etc., without answering the very damning evidence of his vicious behavior toward any who resist his narcissistic cult. He posts about "Gamma Male" behavior while desperately messaging people who happen to "like" the article on Facebook.
"Don't look at me -- this is about Bulgakov!" No one cares about Bulgakov, kid.
Opposing the demonic behavior outlined in this post (with the screenshots to prove it) doesn't require being an ecumenist, Fordhamite, Wheelie, etc. One can oppose overreach in COVID policy, sexual immorality, etc., and ALSO oppose the evil of the DyerCult -- it just takes being a Christian who reads the Scriptures and listens to the Church Fathers and the divine services.
He claims to be following the Fathers, but which of the Fathers ever threatened people who disagreed with them?
It's not Dyer's opposition to ecumenism (etc.) that inspires resistance to him. It's that he acts like the useless, parasitic baby he is and teaches others to do the same. Has the guy ever contributed anything constructive to anyone, or has he just spent his life offering his half-baked opinions on why everyone is wrong except him? People can smell a basement-keyboard-warrior miles off, including people who also regard religious compromise as garbage.
Dyer also likes to write it all off as people unhappy that he is "mean," but threatening to dox someone goes beyond mean, beyond even harassment, to actual illegality and incitement to violence. His cultists do this stuff, too, because he encourages it (https://twitter.com/thelongvoyageMD/status/1657942052783509505).
Dude is just as much an adherent of cancel-culture as anyone on the left, just as much a purveyor of the politics of identitarianism and resentment. He hides behind a veneer of conservative theological and political positions for self-aggrandizement -- just like the liberal wackos he claims to oppose do with their own veneers.
Don't let Dyer smokescreen away from the actual point here -- he is a blight on the Church, and his modernist Reformed-style, self-serving money-making scheme is just as innovationist as anything that the likes of Riccardi-Swartz, Papanikolaou, Demacopulous, etc., are doing. This isn't just the guilt-by-association BS he peddles against other people; it's about his real, documented behavior.
It's a poisonous cult on all sides, and clergy who associate themselves with identitarians and renovationists, whether they go by "progressive" or "conservative" labels, are leading their sheep not to the waters of spiritual renewal but rather to a toxic waste dump of noetic carcinogens.
Excellent points. Dyer is quite adept at diverting his readers' attention from the real issues by hand-waiving at red herrings and false dichotomies, but pitiful at actually addressing the real issues in a humble and nuanced way. He's a sophist at the end of the day, though he fancies himself a philosopher (and most who take him seriously have difficulty discerning this, since they also tend to have no formal training in philosophy or theology).
Right. His cultists never actually look into the claims he makes. Out of laziness, they just bow down before him like so many bowed down in front of Fauci, etc., as experts that simply have to be obeyed because of course they would never lie. But at least some of those experts -- wrong as they were, perhaps even willfully so -- could complete their degree programs. Dyer's "M.A. ABT" is the most hilarious thing ever. Normally when someone drops out of a degree program they don't put it in their bio, but this guy actually thinks he has some kind of credential.
Yes it is very odd. I recently finished my PhD in philosophy, and I can tell you that the 'ABD' and 'ABT' qualifiers are only used for those still pursuing their degree and who expect to complete it soon.
What are the positions he takes that contradict the Orthodox dogma, doctrines and writings of the Church fathers? He constantly refers to them as the true authority. Cut the pathetic ad homs and present an actual argument.
"Has the guy ever contributed anything constructive to anyone, or has he just spent his life offering his half-baked opinions on why everyone is wrong except him? People can smell a basement-keyboard-warrior miles off, including people who also regard religious compromise as garbage."
He has led more people to Orthodoxy than any of the people slandering him together. I know I'm one. I am now baptized and attend my local church. Am I part of the Dyer church you slandering, piety-sginalling demon?
Sounds like it's you who doesn't know the Fathers. St John Chrysostom teaches that you should confront and punch blasphemers if necessary and they're your equals.
"32. But since our discourse has now turned to the subject of blasphemy, I desire to ask one favor of you all, in return for this my address, and speaking with you; which is, that *you will correct on my behalf the blasphemers of this city. And should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them there; and when the judge on the bench calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels! For if it be necessary to punish those who blaspheme an earthly king, much more so those who insult God. It is a common crime, a public injury; and it is lawful for every one who is willing, to bring forward an accusation. Let the Jews and Greeks learn, that the Christians are the saviours of the city; that they are its guardians, its patrons, and its teachers. Let the dissolute and the perverse also learn this; that they must fear the servants of God too; that if at any time they are inclined to utter such a thing, they may look round every way at each other, and tremble even at their own shadows, anxious lest perchance a Christian, having heard what they said, should spring upon them and sharply chastise them. Have you not heard what John did? He saw a man that was a tyrant overthrowing the laws of marriage; and with boldness, he proclaimed in the midst of the forum, It is not lawful for you to have your brother Philip's wife. Mark 6:18 *But I urge you on, not against a prince or a judge; nor against the marriage ordinance outraged; nor in behalf of fellow-servants insulted. But I require you to castigate an equal, for insolence against the Lord."
The Fathers aren't infallible. When they say something that conflicts with the explicit teachings of Christ, it is they who are wrong, Christ who is right. While honoring the Fathers, let's not be fundamentalists about all of their writings.
The Sermon on the Mount and its ethic of non-aggression matters more than some offhand comments by Chrysostom in one homily.
If you feel like something the fathers say conflicts with the teachings of Christ, chances are that the problem isn't with the fathers. It's precisely by going to the holy fathers that we learn to understand the teachings of Christ. The only way to find if a father was wrong about something is if what he says contradicts the consensus of the fathers, and that is quite rare and there is always the possibility of forgery as well. One easy example is the interpolation of the filioque in patristic texts.
You mean your interpretation of Scripture is superior to the interpretation of the Church fathers who are all saints?
And since you interpret the whole Christian ethic towards violence from one single quote (quote mining) instead of looking at the whole of Scripture, here's what Christ said in Luke 22:36: “And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one”.
Or "He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” - Apoc. 13:10.
Not to mention Paul talking about capital punishment as being sanctioned by God in Romans 13:3–4, as well as in Acts 25:11a. How do you reconcile that? You're either a protestant in disguise or you're in prelest, my friend - you're spewing heresy.
I don't think St. John Chrysostom contradicts Christ here. This is just a cultural difference. Having grown up in the East (the Middle East to be precise), physical acts of violence done in a certain manner aren't considered to be as abhorrent or shocking as they are in the West. It is certainly true that Westerners are on the whole far more sensitive, both to words and actions (I make this observation as an immigrant) and I would agree that physically assaulting a blasphemer would be highly inappropriate, if not sinful, in a modern context. In all likelihood, striking a blasphemer in the age of Chrysostom would have moved the person to repentance out of a sudden realization of his folly, and not have insulted his self-image or caused bitterness (such as the effects this action would have on a modern human shaped by Western culture).
Exactly! The author conveys white liberal from America from his article. I’m Eastern European and find his stances erroneous and steeped in western enlightenment nonsense.
I don’t think the author is wrong in criticizing Dyer and his group. Dyer and others like him do not represent the spirit of Orthodoxy or the love of man that the Holy Trinity has called us to. But the author has clear biases of his own, and I think puts too much faith in his own reasoning and preconceptions.
Certain words like “conspiracy theorists” was a red flag. Christ was accused of conspiracy against the Roman Empire. The US government started dozens of wars under lies and to question them at the time was labeled conspiracy theory.
Using “right wing” as a pejorative when leftists label anyone against abortion, an Orthodox position, far right you know you lost the plot.
Blatant bias, though I find the Dyer clan aggressive, and not in the Spirit in humility. John Lennox could teach them about humility and understanding your opponents position in humility.
You can't use St. John to excuse Dyer. St. John went through strict monastic training and ascetic life before ever embarking on apologetics. He didn't take it upon himself to "teach" high theology while not even being a catechumen. He didn't make youtube channels and instagrams full of sensual and disgusting imagery, inane comedy, hang out with wicca bands and promote their vomit and on and on. The holy fathers fought immorality just like they fought heresy, by the way. Dyer promotes it. he promotes Orthodoxy as some sort of philosophical worldview that only needs to be accepted intellectually, and then one can live as one wants, giving way to one's passions without restraint. He may not say that but that is the role model he is presenting. It is like an inocculation against the acquisition of an Orthodox phronema....
That's sophistry and strawmanning. Truth is truth, no matter who teaches it. Dyer doesn't promote Orthodoxy as something strictly intellectual or philosophical - on the contrary he advices people to go inquire in their local Church and talk to the priests, to get baptized and participate in church life. Where do you people get this stuff from and aren't you afraid of committing slander in the face of God? Forget Dyer and the speck in his eye, how is slandering fellow believers Christian at all?
I don't like his comedy, and I agree that some of what he does unwittingly promotes the passions. However, he does not present himself as a spiritual advisor, not rolemodel, nor does he live an openly unorthodox lifestyle. If you "feel" like he does doesn't make it so. I disagree with your assessment that Dyer purposefully promotes degeneracy. However, what I do find troubling is that this blog seems to promote universalism. How accurate is that?
I didn't say he does it purposefully but that's what he does effectively. Take one look at his youtube channel's thumbs and ponder if putting up such imagery is reconcilable with being an Orthodox Christian, much less a teacher of theology.
Fr. Seraphim (Rose) spelled these things out for us so well, and he lived an Orthodox life. That's what we need. Fr. Herman (Podmoshensky)'s lessons are up on youtube, some of them deal directly with this topic, with the Orthodox heart and how cultural expression can help to shape it (or not.) (Whatever he supposedly did, the accusations... is besides the point, personally I don't believe that they are true but I could be wrong.)
Universalism? You mean "The Open Ark?" Honestly I find it hard to read this article as conflated with legitimate criticism of Dyer the blooger has presents some sort of modernist caricature of Orthodoxy that bears little resemblence with the tradition of the holy fathers.
Sadly, this kind of conflation happens quite a lot. That's why it's so dangerous to join a camp. We got to get it all right, but first and most of all, the heart.
You've done the Church a great service writing this, and I pray it circulates widely. May a more mature, less petulant and childish, Orthodox ethos begin to thrive on the internet. God bless you, and continue to shake the dust off your feet when the children throw a fit over this.
That Dyer is running a sectarian, cancerous, deceptive, abusive, anti-Christian, Reformed-discernment-bloggerish, possibly illegal (what with the threats, etc.) mini-Mark-Driscoll-style cult will unfortunately take back seat for many with the language here about ecumenism, especially because it's undefined in this text as to what is meant by "ecumenism."
Especially given his extensive list of religious affiliations, including (but not limited to) Judaism (featuring apologetics against the Trinity), Calvinism, Sedevacantist Papism (a wonderfully ironic bunch) (including apologetics against Orthodoxy), Wicca, the Occult, and whatever religion he is now (which clearly is not Orthodox Christianity, given what the Scripture says about being Christian), Jason Scott Dyer is possibly one of the most "ecumenical" people out there. (I'm personally looking forward to his incipient career as a FAIRMormon apologist.)
No, surely, you say, THIS TIME his movement into a new religious community and making a bunch of money off it will be sincere and repentant, etc. He's really, **truly** become Orthodox this time, after formerly spitting in the face of the priest who condescended to chrismating him then skipping town right after it happened. Plausible. I mean, you can't know his home life! Never mind that his public life is so vile -- don't judge! I mean, it's okay to judge if you're aiming your judgment somewhere else, but not at the "based" cult leader.
There will always be Dyers out there. What's become quite clear, though, is that it is a toxic thing for any clergy to be associated with him in particular -- and very well could open them up to lawsuits or even criminal charges themselves, being enablers and sponsors of this behavior. (How's that going for the RCC these days?)
Does Metropolitan Jonah really know what he's having his name and reputation used for? Does Deacon Ananias Sorem's hierarch, Archbishop Nathanael, know what kind of vulgarity and buffoonish cruelty he is protecting?
These guys don't even pretend to act like Christians publicly, though, so it's no surprise that they hypocritically benefit from the very things they claim to oppose. This is always how religious cults go, though -- big, loud moralism as a veneer for debauchery and hypocrisy.
What a weird question. There doesn't seem to be anything in the article that even remotely points to the author being "liberal" in the American way, but it's far easier to just sling insults and ignore the theological and ecclesiastical issues the author raises, as well as the screenshots that absolutely expose Dyer for extremely sinful and shameful behavior, than it is to deal with the actual issues the author raises.
The entire article points to the author being liberal in the American way.
I am sure you are left wing and thus can't see the bias. It is peppered throughout the article, such as calling inappropriate behavior reactionary and forwarding the myth that people who opposed the vaccines and mandates surrounding Covid were conspiracy theorists. The most egregious example of it is right in the beginning:
..."as a right-wing leaning individual at the time, it was easy to acclimate to, and become desensitized to, the slurs and vulgarity used against those they considered degenerate"...
That's undeniable and inarguable left-wing bias. He says it was easy to become desensitized to slurs "as a right-wing leaning individual." There is no possible way to read that which is not insulting to conservatives. You cannot claim an article which claims that the reason engaging in slurs and calling people degenerates was easy for him was because he was right wing has nothing that "even remotely points to the author being liberal in the American way."
I am thoroughly right wing. I abhor Jay Dyer's behavior. It is repugnant to me. But Noah has fallaciously insulted me with guilt by association by implying that my political leanings make it easy for me to engage in slurs, and I'll be surprised if he even bothers to deny it.
What? The is CLEARLY written by a white liberal, it’s very evident. From using pejoratives like conspiracy theorists and harking on COVID mandates (licking the boots of Democrat governors isn’t my thing), and at how he isn’t shy to label “right wing” anything that isn’t leftist nonsense; shall we mention falsely using ecumenism to be more “open.” Typical leftist behavior.
You sound offended. You are wrong. Ecumenism is heresy. Of course a spirit of Antichrist could infect the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church. Only a liberal would protest obvious realities.
Re-read the article with humility, and recognize your view of "ecumenism" is obviously not the view of "ecumenism" the author and the sources he cites.
Not in the Dyer cult but the author is in the liberal cult. Christians were accused of being a cult, so you lose that argument. You just became as nasty as the Dyer clan, congrats.
Also, ecumenism is heresy per Orthodoxy. Unlike the author, I’m Eastern European so I can easily point out his white liberal bias, which is cultish. Your post is cultish as well, and look how you attack John, same zeal as the Dyer “cult” you label others with. Hypocrisy isn’t Christian, you know.
It does. It drips soy, complacency and secular humanist enlightenment values. You piety-signalling liberal Christians are as far from Orthodoxy as the pharisees were back in Christ's day.
Depending on how one defines the words "ecumenism", "ecumenist" and "ecumenical" one can be absolutely faithful to historic Orthodoxy while speaking favorably of such things, and that seems to be the way the author is using the words. There's nothing in his article that reads like something a "liberal" would say. Did you even read the article, and if you did, do you even understand the issues the author raises, or do they go over your head? He's exposing Dyer and his click as a theological-hack, and he did it well.
Thank you for writing this article. The threat that Jay Dyer and the Patristic Faith set pose to Orthodoxy in America is significant and needs to be addressed head on. A few comments: first, while it's true that the majority of those affiliated with Patristic Faith are members of ROCOR, the rigorist approach to Orthodoxy that characterizes Patristic Faith has infected all Orthodox jurisdictions in America to varying degrees, including the OCA. The common denominator appears to be conservative Protestant converts who have never actually been formed in the Orthodox faith. Throw in some Christ the Savior Brotherhood/Holy Order of Mans converts and you have all the ingredients for a rigid, insular, and judgmental faith.
Second, one of the reasons for the growing influence of Patristic Faith and the brand of Orthodoxy they spew is the fact that our bishops and priests do not speak out about this problem. Given the antisemitism, Lost Cause ideology (John Whiteford), COVID denialism and anti-vax conspiracy theories they push, the silence of our hierarchs and priests is unacceptable. While I'm glad your Archbishop gave his permission to you to publish this, he and his fellow bishops need to do more to oppose this. Our Church depends on it.
The problem is not a "rigorist" i.e. patristic i.e. Orthodox approach. It is the lack of basics in Orthodoxy that affects so many including Dyer. Dyer's approach is anything *but* rigorist. To accuse Fr. John Whiteford of antisemitism makes me question if your honesty. You either just made that up or you have some definition of "antisemitism" that is irreconcilable with Christianity.
What are the basics he lacks in terms of theology? What I gather is you guys don't like him as a person because he's being "mean" and you consider always being nice to people as the paramount Christian virtue.
I saw a link to your article on Twitter through @WholesomeHenri and am glad I clicked it as your article is so eye opening!
Honestly, I like Jay Dyer's videos and have learned a lot from him, but something always felt a little "off" to with him. I don't mean to say he's a bad guy or anything, but something just felt off, and reading your article was so eye opening.
I like that you didn't even really attack Dyer, you just exposed his poor theology, and your PDF attachment with all your receipts was the cherry on top, as you prove everything you said in your article is all true.
I hope Dyer's Bishop and priest and spiritual father sit him down, rebuke him, demand he repent for threatening to dox you, and for his bad theology, as I really do like him and think he has done and can still do a lot of good with his videos, but he needs to repent too.
Anyways, I'm glad I read your article and plan to recommend it to people at my Church for sure.
I doubt you know enough to actually deal with the theological issues this article raised, as the statement you just made is NOT "the" Orthodox position even if you pretend it is.
Not a single saint or Church Father agrees with you. There are no sacraments outside the Church, only the Church of Christ has the true grace filled sacraments.
"The view that Catholics are without grace and are pagans is at odds with the teachings of the Orthodox Church and is erroneous. This fallacy increases even more, for it involuntarily raises the question: if there is no grace in the Catholic Sacraments, then how does the Russian Church receive Catholic clergymen in their present dignity?"
-St. Seraphim Sobolev
It's not hard to find a large number of others. I think you're sincere in your belief that none of the Fathers and Saints taught that there are sacraments outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church, but on a factual level, you're just mistaken. Here's another straightforward example:
"“They confess the Holy Trinity, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is called the true God, and they believe in the Incarnation, but adhere to some heretical ideas. And if they want to convert to the orthodox faith and curse their heresy, then the holy books command us not to baptize them, but to accept them as baptized, and shortly afterwards to grant them communion of the Divine Mysteries."
-St. Joseph of Volotsk
I respect your zeal, but please stop accusing people of being heretics and outside the apostolic faith for confessing what countless Fathers, Saints, and Synods have taught. The idea that it is in any way the consensus of the Church that there are absolutely no sacraments outside of the canonical boundaries of Orthodoxy is a myth. It's demonstrably false.
Mario has filled this comment section with his word concept fallacy rantings, but you proved that what he's been saying is a lie, by quoting the Saints themselves.
Ecumenism can be defined in such a way as to make the word synonymous with evil, but many Saints, and it appears the author of this article, are using the word in its proper form and in a way that is not all heretical and is in line with the way Orthodox Saints have used throughout history.
What you are writing and quoting the saints about is ECONOMIA. The Church can apply ACRIVIA or ECONOMIA. The method of reception is not what we are debating. What is being debated is whether or not Sacraments exist outside the Church, and the Church says no. Please take your academic “orthodoxy” and and keep it in your online communities while people in the real world and the Saints continue to remain faithful to the Dogma of the Church. Perhaps reading Saint Hilarion’s On the Dogma of the Church, should clear up your confusion along with Star Byzantium.
Re-read the below statements from the Saints again. They cannot be reconciled with your view that there are no sacraments outside Orthodoxy.
----------------
"The view that Catholics are without grace and are pagans is at odds with the teachings of the Orthodox Church and is erroneous. This fallacy increases even more, for it involuntarily raises the question: if there is no grace in the Catholic Sacraments, then how does the Russian Church receive Catholic clergymen in their present dignity?"
-St. Seraphim Sobolev
"“They confess the Holy Trinity, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is called the true God, and they believe in the Incarnation, but adhere to some heretical ideas. And if they want to convert to the orthodox faith and curse their heresy, then the holy books command us not to baptize them, but to accept them as baptized, and shortly afterwards to grant them communion of the Divine Mysteries." -St. Joseph of Volotsk
---------------------
One can believe the above, as the Orthodox Church does currently even if you pretend she does not, and still be against "ecumenism" in the sense of merging Orthodoxy with heterodox sects or non-Christian religions.
You still seem to have not actually read the article or to even understand the theological and ecclesiological issues at hand, or why the author draws the connection between your view and multiple ancient heresies.
Re-read the article and deal with it rather than just regurgitate what you've heard from on-line personalities ... and also, STOP pretending that ROCOR is "the One Church" when it is merely a part of Christ's ONE Orthodox Church.
“They have separated themselves from the unity of the Ecumenical Church and are deprived of God’s grace, which abides in Christ’s Church… **And all the actions and sacraments performed by the bishops and priests who have fallen away from the Church are without grace**; while the faithful who take part with them in prayer and sacraments not only do not receive sanctification, they are subject to condemnation for taking part in sin.”
(Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the Latest Documents about the Succession of the Highest Church Authority: 1917-1943, editor Archpriest Vladimir Vorobiov et al., compiled by M.E. Gubonin [Moscow, 1994], 291)
**St. Cyril of Jerusalem** ca. 313-386
“We may not receive Baptism twice or thrice; else it might be said, Though I have failed once, I shall set it right a second time: whereas if you fail once, the thing cannot be set right; for there is one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism : for only the heretics are re-baptized , because **the former was no baptism.**”
(Procatechesis 7)
Evidently it’s not a rebaptism, but the baptism of the Church, but we all get the idea here. Those outside the Church do not have the sacraments nor do they have grace in said sacraments. That is rather clear.
St. Ambrose of Milan ca. 338-397
…now all are made whole; or more exactly, the Christian people alone, for in some even the water is deceitful. Jer. 15:18 **The baptism of unbelievers heals not but pollutes.**”
You quote Saint Ambose and Saint Cyril who knew nothing of a post-great-schism Church ... the author isn't arguing that baptism by pagans or gnostics, etc., is valid, so stop pretending he is.
Again, I don't think you've even read the full article or understand the theological and ecclesiological issues the author, let alone how your view falls in line with multiple ancient heresies.
READ the article in full and deal with the actual claims it makes. Stop just re-asserting your personal opinion and pretending it's truth and the way the One Church belives ... it's childish.
"The view that Catholics are without grace and are pagans is at odds with the teachings of the Orthodox Church and is erroneous. This fallacy increases even more, for it involuntarily raises the question: if there is no grace in the Catholic Sacraments, then how does the Russian Church receive Catholic clergymen in their present dignity?"
-St. Seraphim Sobolev
"“They confess the Holy Trinity, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is called the true God, and they believe in the Incarnation, but adhere to some heretical ideas. And if they want to convert to the orthodox faith and curse their heresy, then the holy books command us not to baptize them, but to accept them as baptized, and shortly afterwards to grant them communion of the Divine Mysteries."
You are literally lying. You may be lying because you are simply ignorant of history, but you are lying nonetheless. I'd suggest you read the article again, set aside your faulty preconceived notions, and read with humility.
Not even martyrdom washes away the sins of heresy and schism. And you want to claim the Church teaches that her treasures, the Sacraments are found outside her doors. How embarrassing and shameful of you.
Because it does teach that. You pretending it doesn't is what's "shameful."
You have been corrected and shown your errors in this thread by multiple people, yet you just continue to plod forward and pretend your personal opinion is "the truth". It feels like I'm chatting with a Protestant.
Your view is not universally supported by the Orthodox Church as a whole today, and to pretend it is, is simply prideful and foolish.
You refuse to deal with any of the points the author makes it his article, possibly because you either haven't actually read the article in full, or because you simply don't understand it, but again, you've been corrected by multiple people in this thread, had your statements proven to be false, etc., yet you keep pridefully plodding forward repeating yourself.
We must not use others as scapegoats, this is a manifestation of an anti christian spirit. I desire to be a slave of Christ and His Church not to some youtuber who lives rent free in your head
WHY have you not said one word about the obvious sins and possibly even criminal actions committed by Jay Dyer against the author?
WHY do you constantly lie and pretend that "the Orthodox position" on sacraments outside the Church is the same as your position, when it's been proven that is not true, yet at the same time you don't say one word about the obvious sins of Dyer's that were exposed by the author in his PDF with all the screenshots?
WHY?
Do YOU condone threatening people, doxing people, posting childish articles calling people autistic, mentally unstable, gamma males, when you can't refute their theological position?
Is that not exactly what Dyer has done with the author?
Dyer threatened the author and said he'd dox him if he wrote anything more. The author wasn't afraid of Dyer or his gang, published an article that is now being promoted by Bishops and priests, and Dyer responded with a childish article basically calling the author an autistic gamma male with mental issues., without even naming him or the article as Dyer was apparently afraid people would actually read the author's article and see his (i.e. Dyers) sins exposed.
On the flip side, the author makes it clear in his article that he loves Dyer and wants to see Dyer be a faithful son of the church but that he simply feels the article needed to be written ... and apparently multiple Bishops and clergy agree with the author!
This is a remarkable article and I applaud you for having the courage to expose Jay Dyer's "church within the Church", as many people know just how nasty and downright ruthless Dyer and his gang can be with those who don't bow to their pretend authority. I'm going to pray for you as my guess is that they will come after you with a vengeance, rather than take your article to heart, search their souls, and repent.
However I also think you deserve a ton of credit for how well written and scholarly your article is, as usually "whistleblower" type articles are just gossip and mud slinging, but you don't attack Dyer on emotional grounds, rather, you completely shred his faulty theology and expose him as a theological hack.
My guess is Dyer or his gang will try to destroy your reputation by just calling you names, but that none of them will have the ability to actually deal with the serious theological and ecclesiastical issues you raise, as it seems clear to me that you are right.
I hope Dyer has the guts to actually repent and allow your letter to be a blessing to him, rather than just attack you, and I am praying for him and for you, and of course, for the Church as a whole.
The theological and ecclesiastical issues already have been settled. “I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” there is one Church, all other “churches” are fake and not real
There's nothing in the author's article that would disagree with that. I don't think you understood the actual theological and ecclesiological issues the author raises. He dismantled Dyer's views and did not just sling insults the way Dyer does to those he disagrees with many times. I don't think Dyer himself can refute this article, and I highly doubt you can either.
Perfect, so you also believe there are no sacraments outside the Church. The problem is settled then. And Elder Ephraim of Arizona is a saint. We have many Holy Fathers like him that teach and confirm the apostolic deposit that heretics and schismatics do not have sacramental grace. Thanks man! I also literally have no clue what Jay’s position is, but I have dealt with Star in the past and he has spread the false belief that sacraments exist outside the Church and that the Orthodox Church has an Augustinian sacramentology (which we dont) Christ is one thus There is only one Church, each branch that yields no fruit is cut off and tossed into the fire, this is both for our own spiritual lives but also for the Church. When a church falls away and schisms she loses the fruit because she is not connected to the source of Life. The Holy Spirit was given to the Church and the Apostles, not to schismatics and heretics. And as a result their sacraments do not do anything for them nor is it the Church supplying grace to them. This is a novel teaching and is heretical as it teaches branch theory or gets closer to this. I will cease any and all communications from now on as I am clearly dealing with someone not living the Orthodox tradition, and fancies the academic life than the Christian one. You have been cut off. Remember the Ecumenical Councils.
Hi! I'm Katja, and I'm a convert to Orthodox Christianity. Nice to "meet" you! I've been Orthodox 20 years now, and as I was becoming Orthodox, and in the first couple years that I was Orthodox, I was living in a place where it was impossible to have any sort of English-speaking Orthodox community. The Orthodox groups that I found online, mostly through LiveJournal, were a huge help. (Ironically enough, Fr. Andrew Damick was part of that.)
Mind you, I think people ought to be zealous about their faith, about Orthodoxy, etc. That's a good thing. However, if it's not done in love, it's "but a clanging cymbal..." This is what the Orthobros forget. Sure, there's a time to talk about and discuss theology, but if you're not letting your faith change your life, if you're not loving God and others, if you're not serving them, it's just a bunch of silly, empty debating by people who want to be "right" all the time. ( And they wonder why women aren't attracted to this type of Orthodoxy!) Rod Dreher just wrote a piece that tangentially touches on some of this; the impetus for the piece was the conversion of a woman academic who studied Christianity deeply actually coming to faith with the Southern Baptists. One of the lines there from Dreher, who is Orthodox, was "I would like for everyone to be Orthodox, but more than that, I would like them to know Jesus with all their hearts and minds." He's not a theologian, he's not an evangelist, but he's brought a good number of people to Orthodoxy (and a few to church, period) just by writing about his life as a believing, Orthodox Christian. We need that kind of witness badly, because "internet Orthodoxy" isn't going away any time soon.
When I was an inquirer, I watched some of David and Jay’s theological videos. They did help introduce me to theological topics I was not aware of and I do like how Jay explained TAG (Transcendental Argument for God). However, I was always put off by Jay’s abrasive debate style. It always bugged me because I felt his points themselves were good, but he was losing on optics (which is important for public debate). I never joined the server and I’m glad I didn’t from reading this. I’m sorry you were treated this way.
All the Western converts who brought their identity crises with them into the Church are turning it into a different flavor of their former Protestant fundamentalism, and they can’t even tell. Criticizing canonical hierarchy, internet blog beef, video drama. It’s all an American pseudo-Orthodoxy. Has nothing to do in reality with the Fathers and the Neptic tradition at the heart of the Byzantine heirloom passed down, it’s just posturing.
“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” I’ve heard only several of Dyer’s videos (from his Orthodox era, not his previous Christian faith iterations). I know that he has a lot of knowledge about historical events in antiquity, but he shows no evidence of spiritual maturity in Christ or transformation which comes from being born again (as Christ describes it). I will pray for you, and for all involved in that story. If you ever would like to discuss further let me know.
Jay is right about any critique he may give about the horrendous and modernist OCA. The author of this article was probably not properly rooted in Orthodox tradition.
All I know is that a bunch of homosexuals, liberals, modernists and ecumenist leaders are ruining the churches everywhere. They don't even believe in the Orthodox faith, but somehow got into their positions, by Satan, I presume.
Don’t follow the Dyer clan, but the author of this article is obviously a liberal and politically biased. Not only had the author’s extreme liberal politics led him to be ignorant of geopolitics, but ecumenism. Additionally, the term “conspiracy theory” is puzzling. Jesus was accused of conspiracy as well, so the author loses that argument. It’s obvious the left, especially liberal left, are ignorant as they can’t observe how the USA has invaded dozens upon dozens of nations, toppling them illegally allowing multi national corporations to steal resources. The USA did this in my country, and France does this all over Africa; which is why African nations want Western Europeans OUT.
Before coming to Christianity, I was decently versed in geopolitics, Covid measures obviously were a joke and scientifically invalid. Puzzling for an extreme far leftist to be so anti-science and a lover of big governorment. I do agree that Christ works outside his Church on individuals as evidenced by millions turning to Christ around the world. But your extreme leftist ecumenical views and biased atheist politics (leftism is atheism to its core) is NOT Orthodox, period.
The world isn’t the care bares and the Bible lays it out nicely. As for Russia, no point to bring it up but liberals got to liberal. Illegal 2014 coup by America and since then the atheist Ukrainian government has slaughtered millions of Orthodox in Eastern Ukraine. How do I know? My country borders Ukraine and the American puppet state subjugates our people in Ukraine and forbids their language and church (I’m not Russian). You have the typical American leftist mindset steeped in ignorance, and need to use pejoratives to slander others. The leftist media is good at labeling anyone a “conspiracy theorists” to discredit valid arguments, and you run with that same tactic. Shameful.
I am not a 'liberal' and I agree with the majority of what he said (I wont comment on the theological stuff) but I have had experience with the discord servers too. The fact that you presume this demonstrates he is a 'liberal' tells me that you have not yet rejected the worldly and that you probably still identify as 'right wing' within the progressive left to right spectrum. The Orthodox process seems to draw us out of this dichtomy and we can observe the game outside of it. I feel that I have done this. I can now observe both left and right and see what they are correct about (both sides are both right and wrong) and integrate some of their insights. The key difference being I am starting from a different root or orientation. Maybe you could get to this place one day yeah?
Dyer's responses to this have predictably been about ecumenism, Bulgakov, etc., without answering the very damning evidence of his vicious behavior toward any who resist his narcissistic cult. He posts about "Gamma Male" behavior while desperately messaging people who happen to "like" the article on Facebook.
"Don't look at me -- this is about Bulgakov!" No one cares about Bulgakov, kid.
Opposing the demonic behavior outlined in this post (with the screenshots to prove it) doesn't require being an ecumenist, Fordhamite, Wheelie, etc. One can oppose overreach in COVID policy, sexual immorality, etc., and ALSO oppose the evil of the DyerCult -- it just takes being a Christian who reads the Scriptures and listens to the Church Fathers and the divine services.
He claims to be following the Fathers, but which of the Fathers ever threatened people who disagreed with them?
It's not Dyer's opposition to ecumenism (etc.) that inspires resistance to him. It's that he acts like the useless, parasitic baby he is and teaches others to do the same. Has the guy ever contributed anything constructive to anyone, or has he just spent his life offering his half-baked opinions on why everyone is wrong except him? People can smell a basement-keyboard-warrior miles off, including people who also regard religious compromise as garbage.
Dyer also likes to write it all off as people unhappy that he is "mean," but threatening to dox someone goes beyond mean, beyond even harassment, to actual illegality and incitement to violence. His cultists do this stuff, too, because he encourages it (https://twitter.com/thelongvoyageMD/status/1657942052783509505).
Dude is just as much an adherent of cancel-culture as anyone on the left, just as much a purveyor of the politics of identitarianism and resentment. He hides behind a veneer of conservative theological and political positions for self-aggrandizement -- just like the liberal wackos he claims to oppose do with their own veneers.
Don't let Dyer smokescreen away from the actual point here -- he is a blight on the Church, and his modernist Reformed-style, self-serving money-making scheme is just as innovationist as anything that the likes of Riccardi-Swartz, Papanikolaou, Demacopulous, etc., are doing. This isn't just the guilt-by-association BS he peddles against other people; it's about his real, documented behavior.
The dude rejected Orthodox Christianity before (http://web.archive.org/web/20080724160848/http://nicenetruth.com/home/2008/06/my-retraction-o.html), and there's little doubt he would do it again, especially if his Alex Jones, Jr., stuff pays more.
It's a poisonous cult on all sides, and clergy who associate themselves with identitarians and renovationists, whether they go by "progressive" or "conservative" labels, are leading their sheep not to the waters of spiritual renewal but rather to a toxic waste dump of noetic carcinogens.
Excellent points. Dyer is quite adept at diverting his readers' attention from the real issues by hand-waiving at red herrings and false dichotomies, but pitiful at actually addressing the real issues in a humble and nuanced way. He's a sophist at the end of the day, though he fancies himself a philosopher (and most who take him seriously have difficulty discerning this, since they also tend to have no formal training in philosophy or theology).
Right. His cultists never actually look into the claims he makes. Out of laziness, they just bow down before him like so many bowed down in front of Fauci, etc., as experts that simply have to be obeyed because of course they would never lie. But at least some of those experts -- wrong as they were, perhaps even willfully so -- could complete their degree programs. Dyer's "M.A. ABT" is the most hilarious thing ever. Normally when someone drops out of a degree program they don't put it in their bio, but this guy actually thinks he has some kind of credential.
Yes it is very odd. I recently finished my PhD in philosophy, and I can tell you that the 'ABD' and 'ABT' qualifiers are only used for those still pursuing their degree and who expect to complete it soon.
What are the positions he takes that contradict the Orthodox dogma, doctrines and writings of the Church fathers? He constantly refers to them as the true authority. Cut the pathetic ad homs and present an actual argument.
"Has the guy ever contributed anything constructive to anyone, or has he just spent his life offering his half-baked opinions on why everyone is wrong except him? People can smell a basement-keyboard-warrior miles off, including people who also regard religious compromise as garbage."
He has led more people to Orthodoxy than any of the people slandering him together. I know I'm one. I am now baptized and attend my local church. Am I part of the Dyer church you slandering, piety-sginalling demon?
Sounds like it's you who doesn't know the Fathers. St John Chrysostom teaches that you should confront and punch blasphemers if necessary and they're your equals.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/190101.htm
This is from Homily 1 on the Statues:
"32. But since our discourse has now turned to the subject of blasphemy, I desire to ask one favor of you all, in return for this my address, and speaking with you; which is, that *you will correct on my behalf the blasphemers of this city. And should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them there; and when the judge on the bench calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels! For if it be necessary to punish those who blaspheme an earthly king, much more so those who insult God. It is a common crime, a public injury; and it is lawful for every one who is willing, to bring forward an accusation. Let the Jews and Greeks learn, that the Christians are the saviours of the city; that they are its guardians, its patrons, and its teachers. Let the dissolute and the perverse also learn this; that they must fear the servants of God too; that if at any time they are inclined to utter such a thing, they may look round every way at each other, and tremble even at their own shadows, anxious lest perchance a Christian, having heard what they said, should spring upon them and sharply chastise them. Have you not heard what John did? He saw a man that was a tyrant overthrowing the laws of marriage; and with boldness, he proclaimed in the midst of the forum, It is not lawful for you to have your brother Philip's wife. Mark 6:18 *But I urge you on, not against a prince or a judge; nor against the marriage ordinance outraged; nor in behalf of fellow-servants insulted. But I require you to castigate an equal, for insolence against the Lord."
The Fathers aren't infallible. When they say something that conflicts with the explicit teachings of Christ, it is they who are wrong, Christ who is right. While honoring the Fathers, let's not be fundamentalists about all of their writings.
The Sermon on the Mount and its ethic of non-aggression matters more than some offhand comments by Chrysostom in one homily.
If you feel like something the fathers say conflicts with the teachings of Christ, chances are that the problem isn't with the fathers. It's precisely by going to the holy fathers that we learn to understand the teachings of Christ. The only way to find if a father was wrong about something is if what he says contradicts the consensus of the fathers, and that is quite rare and there is always the possibility of forgery as well. One easy example is the interpolation of the filioque in patristic texts.
You mean your interpretation of Scripture is superior to the interpretation of the Church fathers who are all saints?
And since you interpret the whole Christian ethic towards violence from one single quote (quote mining) instead of looking at the whole of Scripture, here's what Christ said in Luke 22:36: “And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one”.
Or "He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” - Apoc. 13:10.
Not to mention Paul talking about capital punishment as being sanctioned by God in Romans 13:3–4, as well as in Acts 25:11a. How do you reconcile that? You're either a protestant in disguise or you're in prelest, my friend - you're spewing heresy.
I don't think St. John Chrysostom contradicts Christ here. This is just a cultural difference. Having grown up in the East (the Middle East to be precise), physical acts of violence done in a certain manner aren't considered to be as abhorrent or shocking as they are in the West. It is certainly true that Westerners are on the whole far more sensitive, both to words and actions (I make this observation as an immigrant) and I would agree that physically assaulting a blasphemer would be highly inappropriate, if not sinful, in a modern context. In all likelihood, striking a blasphemer in the age of Chrysostom would have moved the person to repentance out of a sudden realization of his folly, and not have insulted his self-image or caused bitterness (such as the effects this action would have on a modern human shaped by Western culture).
Exactly! The author conveys white liberal from America from his article. I’m Eastern European and find his stances erroneous and steeped in western enlightenment nonsense.
I don’t think the author is wrong in criticizing Dyer and his group. Dyer and others like him do not represent the spirit of Orthodoxy or the love of man that the Holy Trinity has called us to. But the author has clear biases of his own, and I think puts too much faith in his own reasoning and preconceptions.
Agreed 100%.
Certain words like “conspiracy theorists” was a red flag. Christ was accused of conspiracy against the Roman Empire. The US government started dozens of wars under lies and to question them at the time was labeled conspiracy theory.
Using “right wing” as a pejorative when leftists label anyone against abortion, an Orthodox position, far right you know you lost the plot.
Blatant bias, though I find the Dyer clan aggressive, and not in the Spirit in humility. John Lennox could teach them about humility and understanding your opponents position in humility.
You can't use St. John to excuse Dyer. St. John went through strict monastic training and ascetic life before ever embarking on apologetics. He didn't take it upon himself to "teach" high theology while not even being a catechumen. He didn't make youtube channels and instagrams full of sensual and disgusting imagery, inane comedy, hang out with wicca bands and promote their vomit and on and on. The holy fathers fought immorality just like they fought heresy, by the way. Dyer promotes it. he promotes Orthodoxy as some sort of philosophical worldview that only needs to be accepted intellectually, and then one can live as one wants, giving way to one's passions without restraint. He may not say that but that is the role model he is presenting. It is like an inocculation against the acquisition of an Orthodox phronema....
That's sophistry and strawmanning. Truth is truth, no matter who teaches it. Dyer doesn't promote Orthodoxy as something strictly intellectual or philosophical - on the contrary he advices people to go inquire in their local Church and talk to the priests, to get baptized and participate in church life. Where do you people get this stuff from and aren't you afraid of committing slander in the face of God? Forget Dyer and the speck in his eye, how is slandering fellow believers Christian at all?
I don't like his comedy, and I agree that some of what he does unwittingly promotes the passions. However, he does not present himself as a spiritual advisor, not rolemodel, nor does he live an openly unorthodox lifestyle. If you "feel" like he does doesn't make it so. I disagree with your assessment that Dyer purposefully promotes degeneracy. However, what I do find troubling is that this blog seems to promote universalism. How accurate is that?
I didn't say he does it purposefully but that's what he does effectively. Take one look at his youtube channel's thumbs and ponder if putting up such imagery is reconcilable with being an Orthodox Christian, much less a teacher of theology.
Fr. Seraphim (Rose) spelled these things out for us so well, and he lived an Orthodox life. That's what we need. Fr. Herman (Podmoshensky)'s lessons are up on youtube, some of them deal directly with this topic, with the Orthodox heart and how cultural expression can help to shape it (or not.) (Whatever he supposedly did, the accusations... is besides the point, personally I don't believe that they are true but I could be wrong.)
Universalism? You mean "The Open Ark?" Honestly I find it hard to read this article as conflated with legitimate criticism of Dyer the blooger has presents some sort of modernist caricature of Orthodoxy that bears little resemblence with the tradition of the holy fathers.
Sadly, this kind of conflation happens quite a lot. That's why it's so dangerous to join a camp. We got to get it all right, but first and most of all, the heart.
You've done the Church a great service writing this, and I pray it circulates widely. May a more mature, less petulant and childish, Orthodox ethos begin to thrive on the internet. God bless you, and continue to shake the dust off your feet when the children throw a fit over this.
To clarify, I'm Ben Cook, not Ben Cabe. But I do like Ben Cabe. Cool dude.
That Dyer is running a sectarian, cancerous, deceptive, abusive, anti-Christian, Reformed-discernment-bloggerish, possibly illegal (what with the threats, etc.) mini-Mark-Driscoll-style cult will unfortunately take back seat for many with the language here about ecumenism, especially because it's undefined in this text as to what is meant by "ecumenism."
Especially given his extensive list of religious affiliations, including (but not limited to) Judaism (featuring apologetics against the Trinity), Calvinism, Sedevacantist Papism (a wonderfully ironic bunch) (including apologetics against Orthodoxy), Wicca, the Occult, and whatever religion he is now (which clearly is not Orthodox Christianity, given what the Scripture says about being Christian), Jason Scott Dyer is possibly one of the most "ecumenical" people out there. (I'm personally looking forward to his incipient career as a FAIRMormon apologist.)
No, surely, you say, THIS TIME his movement into a new religious community and making a bunch of money off it will be sincere and repentant, etc. He's really, **truly** become Orthodox this time, after formerly spitting in the face of the priest who condescended to chrismating him then skipping town right after it happened. Plausible. I mean, you can't know his home life! Never mind that his public life is so vile -- don't judge! I mean, it's okay to judge if you're aiming your judgment somewhere else, but not at the "based" cult leader.
There will always be Dyers out there. What's become quite clear, though, is that it is a toxic thing for any clergy to be associated with him in particular -- and very well could open them up to lawsuits or even criminal charges themselves, being enablers and sponsors of this behavior. (How's that going for the RCC these days?)
Does Metropolitan Jonah really know what he's having his name and reputation used for? Does Deacon Ananias Sorem's hierarch, Archbishop Nathanael, know what kind of vulgarity and buffoonish cruelty he is protecting?
Similarly, has anyone "followed the money" with regard to this crew? Sorem teaches at Carroll College, which has an active LGBTQ+ presence (https://www.carroll.edu/event/lgbtq-lived-experience-panel). Is Sorem out there protesting against it? Is he quitting his job? Or does he continue to take money from an institution that sponsors this evil? (And it's even supposed to be Catholic!) He's also a member of IOTA, which is full of left-wing academic types (https://carroll.academia.edu/ErikSorem/CurriculumVitae) and (you guessed it!) takes money from all kinds of interesting sources (https://iota-web.org/major-supporters-and-co-laborers/).
What about Dyer himself? He's taken money from Fox News and Alex Jones -- both massive mainstream media conduits for all kinds of foundation money, dark money, and various beneficiaries of government funding. Does his wife still make money from her occult/wicca/new age business and books, wherein she outlined her own system of magic (https://www.reddit.com/r/occult/comments/1so63v/i_am_jamie_hanshaw_author_of_weirdstuff_operation/ https://www.amazon.com/Weird-Stuff-Color-Operation-Creation/dp/098909880X/)?
These guys don't even pretend to act like Christians publicly, though, so it's no surprise that they hypocritically benefit from the very things they claim to oppose. This is always how religious cults go, though -- big, loud moralism as a veneer for debauchery and hypocrisy.
Who did you vote for?
What a weird question. There doesn't seem to be anything in the article that even remotely points to the author being "liberal" in the American way, but it's far easier to just sling insults and ignore the theological and ecclesiastical issues the author raises, as well as the screenshots that absolutely expose Dyer for extremely sinful and shameful behavior, than it is to deal with the actual issues the author raises.
The entire article points to the author being liberal in the American way.
I am sure you are left wing and thus can't see the bias. It is peppered throughout the article, such as calling inappropriate behavior reactionary and forwarding the myth that people who opposed the vaccines and mandates surrounding Covid were conspiracy theorists. The most egregious example of it is right in the beginning:
..."as a right-wing leaning individual at the time, it was easy to acclimate to, and become desensitized to, the slurs and vulgarity used against those they considered degenerate"...
That's undeniable and inarguable left-wing bias. He says it was easy to become desensitized to slurs "as a right-wing leaning individual." There is no possible way to read that which is not insulting to conservatives. You cannot claim an article which claims that the reason engaging in slurs and calling people degenerates was easy for him was because he was right wing has nothing that "even remotely points to the author being liberal in the American way."
I am thoroughly right wing. I abhor Jay Dyer's behavior. It is repugnant to me. But Noah has fallaciously insulted me with guilt by association by implying that my political leanings make it easy for me to engage in slurs, and I'll be surprised if he even bothers to deny it.
What? The is CLEARLY written by a white liberal, it’s very evident. From using pejoratives like conspiracy theorists and harking on COVID mandates (licking the boots of Democrat governors isn’t my thing), and at how he isn’t shy to label “right wing” anything that isn’t leftist nonsense; shall we mention falsely using ecumenism to be more “open.” Typical leftist behavior.
You sound offended. You are wrong. Ecumenism is heresy. Of course a spirit of Antichrist could infect the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church. Only a liberal would protest obvious realities.
Re-read the article with humility, and recognize your view of "ecumenism" is obviously not the view of "ecumenism" the author and the sources he cites.
Word concept fallacy.
The Johnl types are all that are probably left in the Dyer cult.
Not in the Dyer cult but the author is in the liberal cult. Christians were accused of being a cult, so you lose that argument. You just became as nasty as the Dyer clan, congrats.
Also, ecumenism is heresy per Orthodoxy. Unlike the author, I’m Eastern European so I can easily point out his white liberal bias, which is cultish. Your post is cultish as well, and look how you attack John, same zeal as the Dyer “cult” you label others with. Hypocrisy isn’t Christian, you know.
It does. It drips soy, complacency and secular humanist enlightenment values. You piety-signalling liberal Christians are as far from Orthodoxy as the pharisees were back in Christ's day.
I voted for you, of course. You were endorsed by the local League of Democratic Women Voters.
You are a piece of work. Do you worry about Dread Judgment?
Much more than I worry about whom someone voted for. Are you some kind of DNC voting activist or something?
Saint Ephraim of Arizona calls ecumenism a heresy
Word concept fallacy.
Depending on how one defines the words "ecumenism", "ecumenist" and "ecumenical" one can be absolutely faithful to historic Orthodoxy while speaking favorably of such things, and that seems to be the way the author is using the words. There's nothing in his article that reads like something a "liberal" would say. Did you even read the article, and if you did, do you even understand the issues the author raises, or do they go over your head? He's exposing Dyer and his click as a theological-hack, and he did it well.
It's time for the likes of Dcn. Ananias Sorem to repent of his ecumenism. He is a participating member of IOTA (https://carroll.academia.edu/ErikSorem/CurriculumVitae), has fundraised to present a paper there (https://www.gofundme.com/f/iota-conference-fundraiser), which gets money and support from and coordinates with a whole list of ecumenist organizations (https://iota-web.org/major-supporters-and-co-laborers/), including:
- Huffington Ecumenical Institute, Loyola Marymount University
- Orthodox Christian Studies Center, Fordham University
- St. Phoebe Center for the Deaconess
- Axia Women
As a member of IOTA, Sorem directly benefits from and endorses these groups -- including the Fordhamites themselves.
Thank you for writing this article. The threat that Jay Dyer and the Patristic Faith set pose to Orthodoxy in America is significant and needs to be addressed head on. A few comments: first, while it's true that the majority of those affiliated with Patristic Faith are members of ROCOR, the rigorist approach to Orthodoxy that characterizes Patristic Faith has infected all Orthodox jurisdictions in America to varying degrees, including the OCA. The common denominator appears to be conservative Protestant converts who have never actually been formed in the Orthodox faith. Throw in some Christ the Savior Brotherhood/Holy Order of Mans converts and you have all the ingredients for a rigid, insular, and judgmental faith.
Second, one of the reasons for the growing influence of Patristic Faith and the brand of Orthodoxy they spew is the fact that our bishops and priests do not speak out about this problem. Given the antisemitism, Lost Cause ideology (John Whiteford), COVID denialism and anti-vax conspiracy theories they push, the silence of our hierarchs and priests is unacceptable. While I'm glad your Archbishop gave his permission to you to publish this, he and his fellow bishops need to do more to oppose this. Our Church depends on it.
The problem is not a "rigorist" i.e. patristic i.e. Orthodox approach. It is the lack of basics in Orthodoxy that affects so many including Dyer. Dyer's approach is anything *but* rigorist. To accuse Fr. John Whiteford of antisemitism makes me question if your honesty. You either just made that up or you have some definition of "antisemitism" that is irreconcilable with Christianity.
What are the basics he lacks in terms of theology? What I gather is you guys don't like him as a person because he's being "mean" and you consider always being nice to people as the paramount Christian virtue.
WOW!
I saw a link to your article on Twitter through @WholesomeHenri and am glad I clicked it as your article is so eye opening!
Honestly, I like Jay Dyer's videos and have learned a lot from him, but something always felt a little "off" to with him. I don't mean to say he's a bad guy or anything, but something just felt off, and reading your article was so eye opening.
I like that you didn't even really attack Dyer, you just exposed his poor theology, and your PDF attachment with all your receipts was the cherry on top, as you prove everything you said in your article is all true.
I hope Dyer's Bishop and priest and spiritual father sit him down, rebuke him, demand he repent for threatening to dox you, and for his bad theology, as I really do like him and think he has done and can still do a lot of good with his videos, but he needs to repent too.
Anyways, I'm glad I read your article and plan to recommend it to people at my Church for sure.
Have a great day,
Vladimir
Hi! Only the Church of Christ has the sacraments, those outside the Body don’t. Thanks! :)
I doubt you know enough to actually deal with the theological issues this article raised, as the statement you just made is NOT "the" Orthodox position even if you pretend it is.
Not a single saint or Church Father agrees with you. There are no sacraments outside the Church, only the Church of Christ has the true grace filled sacraments.
"The view that Catholics are without grace and are pagans is at odds with the teachings of the Orthodox Church and is erroneous. This fallacy increases even more, for it involuntarily raises the question: if there is no grace in the Catholic Sacraments, then how does the Russian Church receive Catholic clergymen in their present dignity?"
-St. Seraphim Sobolev
It's not hard to find a large number of others. I think you're sincere in your belief that none of the Fathers and Saints taught that there are sacraments outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church, but on a factual level, you're just mistaken. Here's another straightforward example:
"“They confess the Holy Trinity, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is called the true God, and they believe in the Incarnation, but adhere to some heretical ideas. And if they want to convert to the orthodox faith and curse their heresy, then the holy books command us not to baptize them, but to accept them as baptized, and shortly afterwards to grant them communion of the Divine Mysteries."
-St. Joseph of Volotsk
I respect your zeal, but please stop accusing people of being heretics and outside the apostolic faith for confessing what countless Fathers, Saints, and Synods have taught. The idea that it is in any way the consensus of the Church that there are absolutely no sacraments outside of the canonical boundaries of Orthodoxy is a myth. It's demonstrably false.
That is a wonderful reply Charles.
Mario has filled this comment section with his word concept fallacy rantings, but you proved that what he's been saying is a lie, by quoting the Saints themselves.
Ecumenism can be defined in such a way as to make the word synonymous with evil, but many Saints, and it appears the author of this article, are using the word in its proper form and in a way that is not all heretical and is in line with the way Orthodox Saints have used throughout history.
God bless you! May my memory ever be soiled in your heart, and my your kind words ever be for my humbling!
What you are writing and quoting the saints about is ECONOMIA. The Church can apply ACRIVIA or ECONOMIA. The method of reception is not what we are debating. What is being debated is whether or not Sacraments exist outside the Church, and the Church says no. Please take your academic “orthodoxy” and and keep it in your online communities while people in the real world and the Saints continue to remain faithful to the Dogma of the Church. Perhaps reading Saint Hilarion’s On the Dogma of the Church, should clear up your confusion along with Star Byzantium.
Re-read the below statements from the Saints again. They cannot be reconciled with your view that there are no sacraments outside Orthodoxy.
----------------
"The view that Catholics are without grace and are pagans is at odds with the teachings of the Orthodox Church and is erroneous. This fallacy increases even more, for it involuntarily raises the question: if there is no grace in the Catholic Sacraments, then how does the Russian Church receive Catholic clergymen in their present dignity?"
-St. Seraphim Sobolev
"“They confess the Holy Trinity, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is called the true God, and they believe in the Incarnation, but adhere to some heretical ideas. And if they want to convert to the orthodox faith and curse their heresy, then the holy books command us not to baptize them, but to accept them as baptized, and shortly afterwards to grant them communion of the Divine Mysteries." -St. Joseph of Volotsk
---------------------
One can believe the above, as the Orthodox Church does currently even if you pretend she does not, and still be against "ecumenism" in the sense of merging Orthodoxy with heterodox sects or non-Christian religions.
You still seem to have not actually read the article or to even understand the theological and ecclesiological issues at hand, or why the author draws the connection between your view and multiple ancient heresies.
Re-read the article and deal with it rather than just regurgitate what you've heard from on-line personalities ... and also, STOP pretending that ROCOR is "the One Church" when it is merely a part of Christ's ONE Orthodox Church.
**St. Tikhon of Moscow** 1865-1925
“They have separated themselves from the unity of the Ecumenical Church and are deprived of God’s grace, which abides in Christ’s Church… **And all the actions and sacraments performed by the bishops and priests who have fallen away from the Church are without grace**; while the faithful who take part with them in prayer and sacraments not only do not receive sanctification, they are subject to condemnation for taking part in sin.”
(Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the Latest Documents about the Succession of the Highest Church Authority: 1917-1943, editor Archpriest Vladimir Vorobiov et al., compiled by M.E. Gubonin [Moscow, 1994], 291)
**St. Cyril of Jerusalem** ca. 313-386
“We may not receive Baptism twice or thrice; else it might be said, Though I have failed once, I shall set it right a second time: whereas if you fail once, the thing cannot be set right; for there is one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism : for only the heretics are re-baptized , because **the former was no baptism.**”
(Procatechesis 7)
Evidently it’s not a rebaptism, but the baptism of the Church, but we all get the idea here. Those outside the Church do not have the sacraments nor do they have grace in said sacraments. That is rather clear.
St. Ambrose of Milan ca. 338-397
…now all are made whole; or more exactly, the Christian people alone, for in some even the water is deceitful. Jer. 15:18 **The baptism of unbelievers heals not but pollutes.**”
(On the Mysteries 4.23)
Silliness.
You quote Saint Ambose and Saint Cyril who knew nothing of a post-great-schism Church ... the author isn't arguing that baptism by pagans or gnostics, etc., is valid, so stop pretending he is.
Again, I don't think you've even read the full article or understand the theological and ecclesiological issues the author, let alone how your view falls in line with multiple ancient heresies.
READ the article in full and deal with the actual claims it makes. Stop just re-asserting your personal opinion and pretending it's truth and the way the One Church belives ... it's childish.
"The view that Catholics are without grace and are pagans is at odds with the teachings of the Orthodox Church and is erroneous. This fallacy increases even more, for it involuntarily raises the question: if there is no grace in the Catholic Sacraments, then how does the Russian Church receive Catholic clergymen in their present dignity?"
-St. Seraphim Sobolev
"“They confess the Holy Trinity, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is called the true God, and they believe in the Incarnation, but adhere to some heretical ideas. And if they want to convert to the orthodox faith and curse their heresy, then the holy books command us not to baptize them, but to accept them as baptized, and shortly afterwards to grant them communion of the Divine Mysteries."
-St. Joseph of Volotsk
Mario,
You are literally lying. You may be lying because you are simply ignorant of history, but you are lying nonetheless. I'd suggest you read the article again, set aside your faulty preconceived notions, and read with humility.
Not even martyrdom washes away the sins of heresy and schism. And you want to claim the Church teaches that her treasures, the Sacraments are found outside her doors. How embarrassing and shameful of you.
Because it does teach that. You pretending it doesn't is what's "shameful."
You have been corrected and shown your errors in this thread by multiple people, yet you just continue to plod forward and pretend your personal opinion is "the truth". It feels like I'm chatting with a Protestant.
Your view is not universally supported by the Orthodox Church as a whole today, and to pretend it is, is simply prideful and foolish.
You refuse to deal with any of the points the author makes it his article, possibly because you either haven't actually read the article in full, or because you simply don't understand it, but again, you've been corrected by multiple people in this thread, had your statements proven to be false, etc., yet you keep pridefully plodding forward repeating yourself.
Stop.
Begone Dyer minions!
We must not use others as scapegoats, this is a manifestation of an anti christian spirit. I desire to be a slave of Christ and His Church not to some youtuber who lives rent free in your head
MARIO,
WHY have you not said one word about the obvious sins and possibly even criminal actions committed by Jay Dyer against the author?
WHY do you constantly lie and pretend that "the Orthodox position" on sacraments outside the Church is the same as your position, when it's been proven that is not true, yet at the same time you don't say one word about the obvious sins of Dyer's that were exposed by the author in his PDF with all the screenshots?
WHY?
Do YOU condone threatening people, doxing people, posting childish articles calling people autistic, mentally unstable, gamma males, when you can't refute their theological position?
Is that not exactly what Dyer has done with the author?
Dyer threatened the author and said he'd dox him if he wrote anything more. The author wasn't afraid of Dyer or his gang, published an article that is now being promoted by Bishops and priests, and Dyer responded with a childish article basically calling the author an autistic gamma male with mental issues., without even naming him or the article as Dyer was apparently afraid people would actually read the author's article and see his (i.e. Dyers) sins exposed.
On the flip side, the author makes it clear in his article that he loves Dyer and wants to see Dyer be a faithful son of the church but that he simply feels the article needed to be written ... and apparently multiple Bishops and clergy agree with the author!
I literally do not watch Dyer but okay :( God help you
This is a remarkable article and I applaud you for having the courage to expose Jay Dyer's "church within the Church", as many people know just how nasty and downright ruthless Dyer and his gang can be with those who don't bow to their pretend authority. I'm going to pray for you as my guess is that they will come after you with a vengeance, rather than take your article to heart, search their souls, and repent.
However I also think you deserve a ton of credit for how well written and scholarly your article is, as usually "whistleblower" type articles are just gossip and mud slinging, but you don't attack Dyer on emotional grounds, rather, you completely shred his faulty theology and expose him as a theological hack.
My guess is Dyer or his gang will try to destroy your reputation by just calling you names, but that none of them will have the ability to actually deal with the serious theological and ecclesiastical issues you raise, as it seems clear to me that you are right.
I hope Dyer has the guts to actually repent and allow your letter to be a blessing to him, rather than just attack you, and I am praying for him and for you, and of course, for the Church as a whole.
Christ is Risen,
Peter
The theological and ecclesiastical issues already have been settled. “I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” there is one Church, all other “churches” are fake and not real
There's nothing in the author's article that would disagree with that. I don't think you understood the actual theological and ecclesiological issues the author raises. He dismantled Dyer's views and did not just sling insults the way Dyer does to those he disagrees with many times. I don't think Dyer himself can refute this article, and I highly doubt you can either.
Perfect, so you also believe there are no sacraments outside the Church. The problem is settled then. And Elder Ephraim of Arizona is a saint. We have many Holy Fathers like him that teach and confirm the apostolic deposit that heretics and schismatics do not have sacramental grace. Thanks man! I also literally have no clue what Jay’s position is, but I have dealt with Star in the past and he has spread the false belief that sacraments exist outside the Church and that the Orthodox Church has an Augustinian sacramentology (which we dont) Christ is one thus There is only one Church, each branch that yields no fruit is cut off and tossed into the fire, this is both for our own spiritual lives but also for the Church. When a church falls away and schisms she loses the fruit because she is not connected to the source of Life. The Holy Spirit was given to the Church and the Apostles, not to schismatics and heretics. And as a result their sacraments do not do anything for them nor is it the Church supplying grace to them. This is a novel teaching and is heretical as it teaches branch theory or gets closer to this. I will cease any and all communications from now on as I am clearly dealing with someone not living the Orthodox tradition, and fancies the academic life than the Christian one. You have been cut off. Remember the Ecumenical Councils.
Sorry you had to endure this. Nowhere in Scripture does it encourage you to be a jerk.
Thank you so much for your well-written article bringing this to light. I am so sorry that you experienced this. -Ita
Christ is Risen!
Hi! I'm Katja, and I'm a convert to Orthodox Christianity. Nice to "meet" you! I've been Orthodox 20 years now, and as I was becoming Orthodox, and in the first couple years that I was Orthodox, I was living in a place where it was impossible to have any sort of English-speaking Orthodox community. The Orthodox groups that I found online, mostly through LiveJournal, were a huge help. (Ironically enough, Fr. Andrew Damick was part of that.)
Mind you, I think people ought to be zealous about their faith, about Orthodoxy, etc. That's a good thing. However, if it's not done in love, it's "but a clanging cymbal..." This is what the Orthobros forget. Sure, there's a time to talk about and discuss theology, but if you're not letting your faith change your life, if you're not loving God and others, if you're not serving them, it's just a bunch of silly, empty debating by people who want to be "right" all the time. ( And they wonder why women aren't attracted to this type of Orthodoxy!) Rod Dreher just wrote a piece that tangentially touches on some of this; the impetus for the piece was the conversion of a woman academic who studied Christianity deeply actually coming to faith with the Southern Baptists. One of the lines there from Dreher, who is Orthodox, was "I would like for everyone to be Orthodox, but more than that, I would like them to know Jesus with all their hearts and minds." He's not a theologian, he's not an evangelist, but he's brought a good number of people to Orthodoxy (and a few to church, period) just by writing about his life as a believing, Orthodox Christian. We need that kind of witness badly, because "internet Orthodoxy" isn't going away any time soon.
Good article. I’ve found more or less this to be the same that I’ve noticed about all the named individuals.
When I was an inquirer, I watched some of David and Jay’s theological videos. They did help introduce me to theological topics I was not aware of and I do like how Jay explained TAG (Transcendental Argument for God). However, I was always put off by Jay’s abrasive debate style. It always bugged me because I felt his points themselves were good, but he was losing on optics (which is important for public debate). I never joined the server and I’m glad I didn’t from reading this. I’m sorry you were treated this way.
All the Western converts who brought their identity crises with them into the Church are turning it into a different flavor of their former Protestant fundamentalism, and they can’t even tell. Criticizing canonical hierarchy, internet blog beef, video drama. It’s all an American pseudo-Orthodoxy. Has nothing to do in reality with the Fathers and the Neptic tradition at the heart of the Byzantine heirloom passed down, it’s just posturing.
“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” I’ve heard only several of Dyer’s videos (from his Orthodox era, not his previous Christian faith iterations). I know that he has a lot of knowledge about historical events in antiquity, but he shows no evidence of spiritual maturity in Christ or transformation which comes from being born again (as Christ describes it). I will pray for you, and for all involved in that story. If you ever would like to discuss further let me know.
Jay is right about any critique he may give about the horrendous and modernist OCA. The author of this article was probably not properly rooted in Orthodox tradition.
All I know is that a bunch of homosexuals, liberals, modernists and ecumenist leaders are ruining the churches everywhere. They don't even believe in the Orthodox faith, but somehow got into their positions, by Satan, I presume.
Don’t follow the Dyer clan, but the author of this article is obviously a liberal and politically biased. Not only had the author’s extreme liberal politics led him to be ignorant of geopolitics, but ecumenism. Additionally, the term “conspiracy theory” is puzzling. Jesus was accused of conspiracy as well, so the author loses that argument. It’s obvious the left, especially liberal left, are ignorant as they can’t observe how the USA has invaded dozens upon dozens of nations, toppling them illegally allowing multi national corporations to steal resources. The USA did this in my country, and France does this all over Africa; which is why African nations want Western Europeans OUT.
Before coming to Christianity, I was decently versed in geopolitics, Covid measures obviously were a joke and scientifically invalid. Puzzling for an extreme far leftist to be so anti-science and a lover of big governorment. I do agree that Christ works outside his Church on individuals as evidenced by millions turning to Christ around the world. But your extreme leftist ecumenical views and biased atheist politics (leftism is atheism to its core) is NOT Orthodox, period.
The world isn’t the care bares and the Bible lays it out nicely. As for Russia, no point to bring it up but liberals got to liberal. Illegal 2014 coup by America and since then the atheist Ukrainian government has slaughtered millions of Orthodox in Eastern Ukraine. How do I know? My country borders Ukraine and the American puppet state subjugates our people in Ukraine and forbids their language and church (I’m not Russian). You have the typical American leftist mindset steeped in ignorance, and need to use pejoratives to slander others. The leftist media is good at labeling anyone a “conspiracy theorists” to discredit valid arguments, and you run with that same tactic. Shameful.
I am not a 'liberal' and I agree with the majority of what he said (I wont comment on the theological stuff) but I have had experience with the discord servers too. The fact that you presume this demonstrates he is a 'liberal' tells me that you have not yet rejected the worldly and that you probably still identify as 'right wing' within the progressive left to right spectrum. The Orthodox process seems to draw us out of this dichtomy and we can observe the game outside of it. I feel that I have done this. I can now observe both left and right and see what they are correct about (both sides are both right and wrong) and integrate some of their insights. The key difference being I am starting from a different root or orientation. Maybe you could get to this place one day yeah?