An ex RC monk and Orthodox convert, I now teach Religious Studies and seek after living Christianity: the Gospel of salvation. I explore the Gospel and Grace, asceticism, monasticism, prayer, meditation, spiritualities true and false and spiritual warfare. Just sharing some ideas from good books and some notes on the journey.
In my understanding, they may want to emphasize that since the Bible has been produced in a certain context, we cannot make interpretation devoid of the initial context in which it was brought forth, not necessarily a claim of ownership. Thank you for the video!
You would put your trust in the opinion of a man that wanted to remove books from Holy Scripture? Furthermore everyone knows the Light in the Saints is the Light of Christ. Nobody says otherwise. If Mary can compel Christ to perform a miracle before His time, it would seem very foolish to suggest the Saints cannot help us in growing closer to the Light that is Christ.
Holy Orthodoxy is the True Faith. Mount Athos is the Mother of God's garden. I have nonidea what Aberdeen is but there is no comparison even that can be made to the Holiness of Mount Athos in Greece.
Interesting perspective that I too shared until recently. I don't doubt it is a place consecrated by much prayer...but I also accept that God is in all parts and all places, completely undiluted.
I'm honestly uncertain what the inspiration was for this video. I've never once heard someone proclaiming this approach. Searching for that exact string, the closest I find is the same refrain I've heard often, something like "I would be willing to suffer hellfire if it would save even a single soul," or "Let me suffer all things, but let my brother be saved" That approach...well, if we are to imitate Christ, then this is a great sentiment to hold, being willing to give up one's own good for the good of another is the essence of Godly love.
The inspiration is Hebrews 10, 1-25. Studying it, praying it through. The title comes from a shoemaker who is said in the life of St Anthony to have attained great holiness by repeating this as he went about his chores. I simply question how Biblical such an idea is in the light of this specific passage. We are to have free and even bold access to God through our one High Priest.
I recall that you spoke of being a monastic at Lumen Dei? I'd enjoy hearing some anecdotes about your time there (presuming you would like to share, of course). Great insights, as always 💪
I think you should listen to the videos by Archbishop Lazar on the Priesthood. He has a few videos. The Orthodox position has never denied the Priesthood of all believers and what a lot of what you are saying here. I believe you will greatly be surprised and relieved listening to his videos on these matters, and others. God’s love and grace and mercy be with you.
But also, we love the orthodox prebyters, deacons and bishops. Yes they have many man made tradition, but their churches are guided by the holy spirit, like all of ours.
What are the man made traditions when Orthodoxy predates RCC and Protestantism? Scripture literally calls the Church the foundation and pillar of truth. Paul tells Timothy to hold on the traditions he passed on to him orally and via letters. Paul spent 3 years in Arabia for most likely his catechism and taught for 3 years in the church of Ephesus or Thessaloniki (I can’t recall which one). You can go read the Didache online which is what the apostles wrote early on smh.
@@FaithfulComforter Yes, the Church of Greece is indeed really ancient and of the most noble origin, no doubt about that. The man made tradition can be for example all the hymns that the orthodox sing and recite before they go to bed (most of those hymns and songs are wonderful). And yes the church is the pillar which supports the revelation, amen. I don't think the didache ,despite his name (the full name literally means teaching of the twelve apostles), is from the apostle, but yes it is an early document, and this is really good that the church in Istanbul kept this document so we can read it online.
Plenty of man-made accretion but still an effective contributor to the dissemination of the Gospel and God's holiness in the world...but plenty of non binding accretion like icon veneration in worship, a sacramental priesthood, Marian dogmas beyond scripture, prayers to multiple mediators, forgiveness by auricular confession, sanctification being the means of salvation rather than the gift of faith, over emphasis of celibacy and monasticism....but if one can engage with these things lightly and get round these things somehow, they worship in a beautiful and sincere way. That's my current take...
We can say we offer a sacrifice, but a sacrifice of mourning and prayer. Not a bloody sacrifice. It is like in Psalm 50, God no longer need killing and blood, we offer him techouva, a broken spirit and a cry for help.
The Eucharist is not a sin offering; it is an offering of thanksgiving and a rememberance of Christ's sacrifice. Christ's work was indeed accomplished once an for all on the cross, and this is its memorial. We confess sins to see ourselves clearly, humbling ourselves to see the necessity of his sacrifice. The notion that one goes into Church to "top up on forgiveness" is strange to me; I hope thats not a common perception. One receives communion to encounter Christ, hoping by His grace and our fervent disposition to be healed from the darkness we invite to cause pain to ourselves and others. Blessings, as always brother
The Priesthood existed since the 1st Century. Even in Scripture it says the Apostles were serving the Liturgy to God in Acts 13:2 “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” The word “ministered” is a wrong translation, the Greek word itself is “Λειτουργούντων” (leitourgountōn). So Apostle Paul and Barnabas were serving the Liturgy, because they were Priests. All the Apostolic Fathers mentioned the Priesthood as well. To claim it was developed therefore wrong is also a bad argument because the Old Testament is full of development. Cain and Able didn’t worship the way Abraham did, Abraham didn’t worship the way King David did, and King David didn’t worship the way King Solomon did. By your logic, everything fell apart after Cain and Able.
Unfortunately, see how your comment is the only comment he didn't like. Why do people not see history clearly pointing to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!
Sincere question. When you place so much "exclusive authority" in scripture. How do you explain the first, second and third century martyrs. People who gave everything for Christ. People who were overwhelmingly illiterate by and large, People who had minimal direct access to scripture (many in the first century ZERO access), People who could only have come to scripture through its vertical distribution via apostles or the appointed bishops/clergy/etc.... I see what you see (except my previous comment about your contextual error) in scripture but I MUST take into account the greatest of us, the men and women who first followed Christ to their death with far greater faith than us and far less access to information than us. I must consider them when I hear these discussions and cannot reconcile this sort of exclusion of their experience. So to my direct question.... As you come to your conclusions you seem to exclude the real lived experience of these blessed men and women... why? PS - love your channel and very much appreciate you brother.
Thank you. Exclusive authority in scripture: no. Ultimate and only binding authority being scripture: yes. Experiences can be airbrushed, presented in a certain light by a certain church. I don't know, I think salvation is of God, scripture I'd God's Word. History is a human reconstruction of the past. Useful, but not at all salvific. I'm concerned that so many young Orthodox converts are more interested in church history than God's Word, with "correct institutional membership" than in salvation. As one delves deep into church history the facile belief that EO offers this pristine Apostolic Tradition quickly evaporates. Its very 7th-10th century in much of its practices today. The Reformers call to return to the sources (ad fontes) is highly relevant, lest we end up bound to medieval practices that have no business binding our consciences. That is my take. Also just because the early Christians did not have modern biblical software etc but only portions of scripture, is not an argument to look to them as better guides of true Christianity in all things. They can't save me. That is Christ's work and prerogative. Something they would have freely confessed themselves. Thanks again for your contributions.
@@FaithinChristCrucified You're welcome. I'm actually not nearly as interested in history as I am in how the most devoted of us managed to get there in the absence of the exact thing you're giving "ultimate" authority to. Especially when scripture fails to tell us this very thing. That's two very very very large question marks about the conclusions you're drawing. The Church is not civic. the civic aspect of the church is in fact full of may lies, misdeeds, etc... of course it is, the sinners are in charge. However His eternal Church is and always will be uncorrupted. its important not to conflate these things.
8:43 "we do not go there to offer a sacrifice to God. That has been done once"... reading this as though it is in the past is your error. This has been done in eternity. Which means right now. This one temporal misunderstanding is fundamental to many if not all misunderstandings of Christ. There is no NEW sacrifice it is the one and only sacrifice made in eternity. Your reference to "been done once" is 100% accurate except you read it as tho it is in the past. It is right here, right now, and forever. Your use of the word "sacrifice" as it relates to the Liturgy is a misappropriation of the term. You use it in past/present. That is in error. There is but ONE Liturgy, ONE sacrifice and it is Eternal. The Orthodox use of the term long predates your use of the term and you are not using it in the same context, therefore you arrive at a different conclusion. People like James White do exactly the same thing. Christ is not in the past. His actions are not in the past. They are eternal. Even ChaGPT knows what "eternal" means.... "Eternal" means lasting forever, without beginning or end, and existing outside of time.
for contrast. you will hear protestants accuse us of "praying to the dead" when we pray to saints. John 11:26 would beg the question... Dead? Who exactly are they referring to? Are the Saints dead? Or are they here with us right now in eternity? Are we outside of eternity? Are they outside of eternity? Where is Christ? If ANY of them... the saints, Christ, us are outside of eternity where in scripture are we informed of this?
Well OK. But as I pour over tge scriptures I see a sacrifice finished complete, set aside and no institution of a priesthood for dealing with sin or acting as my mediation to God. Human tradition and fancy footwork in philosophy. Well we have to decide what matters more.
@@FaithinChristCrucified you're missing the point. are we inside or outside eternity? What did Christ himself DO, Give us? The scriptures have NO record of a book or anthology of any kind. What you do have is what we know. The greatest of all of His disciples did not have what you're calling "ultimate" authority. The only form of scriptural information even available was through verticality. Your perspective on the priesthood is understandable, you're not seeing what Christ actually did and did not do is not.
The only important thing I have to contribute is that seeing Christ and scripture through the lens of eternity is not "philosophy" this is reality brother. Reality. It is seeing Him through the lens of linear past present future that is wholly demonic and secular. All my other comments aside I urge you to consider how problematic this contextual issue really is.
I found Catholicism too punitive and wrestled with it for over 20 years, whereas when I discovered Orthodoxy, I found it a healing faith. Following that path now, even though my nearest Orthodox Church is a 7 hour drive away. I try to go every 3 months and stay for a long weekend.
The greatest challenge I have with this recontextualizing of things is that it would render the ancient witness of the faith to be null and void, even in the age of the Apostolic Fathers. St Clement of Rome didn't act like the Eucharist was a sin offering, but rather was the "offering of the gift" which was presented at fixed times, according to the good pleasure and will of God. St Ignatius ties the Eucharistic celebration to the Bishop using terms combining the exhortation of 'slaves obey your masters' from Ephesians 6 with Peter's claim that the Presbyters are to serve as shepherds until the return of the Shephers (1 Peter 5:1-4). This is echoed in principle by the Didache, St Irenaeus, and St Justin Martyr in that first 100 years after the Apostles. If the claim is that the Bible teaches something opposed to the witness of the earliest post-Apostolic Christians, then where could we even find a small remnant of faithful who held to true doctrine without change, who kept to the "faith having been delivered once and for all to the Saints" (Jude 1:3)? If there is no remnant, not even a single body that held to the true doctrine, and the downfall of true doctrine came at the hands of the Bishops appointed by the Apostles, then the promise of Christ seems to have failed - the gates of Hell have prevailed over the Church and 'ur-Christianity' was rediscovered some time in the past 300-500 years. It reduces Christianity's heritage to something like Advaita Vedanta - a practice which came about in 1000AD and claims to be the ancient faith of the Vedas despite there being basically no straightforward connection between them aside from claiming to hold to the same Scriptures If the claim is that Catholicism, and certainly some lines of thinking in Orthodoxy, have obfuscated the truth by excessive theologizing, that's much less alarming, but it still wouldn't agree with this particular reading of Hebrews. Personally, one reason I became Orthodox instead of returning to my Protestant roots was because a plain reading of the text may not support the 'sacerdotal Priesthood' in a strict sense, but a plain reading of the text does say that a tremendous amount of power was given to the Elders and Overseers, who govern the Church and have at least some ability to speak for Christ, that we must willingly obey their teachings and imitate their way of life, and that we should be giving continual sacrifice to God - even in spite of there being no remaining sin to atone for. I couldn't find a Protestant Church that did all of those things and taught them to be part of the proper way of living as a Christian.
Thanks for your reflection. For me, I have to return to the power and clarity of scripture as my highest authority. Such radical deviations into priesthoods and practices not instituted by God, even if ancient, cannot be warranted. Elders have authority only to the extent they align with God's Word and no church group can set itself up as an equal authority to scripture without idolatry of the subtlest kind. Buddhism is powerful too, very powerful but it makes you disappear inside your self and flee the world. I personally note a similar spirit (though subtler and with a Christian stamp) in EO.
@@FaithinChristCrucified These actions only appear to be radical deviations if we read the text divorced from the co-occurring practice and understanding present at the time. We can't even understand _what_ Scripture is if we have to so radically distrust the authorities who compiled, copied, and passed down the texts in the first place
@@FaithinChristCrucified to follow this line of thinking then the greatest of all christians first, second and third century martyrs would have lived and died without this "exclusive authority" you insist on. What did they die for? Where did they get such faith? How was this information imparted to them? We have these answers. And it's not "authority of scripture". (I am not seeking to neuter the authority of scripture but authoritative exclusivity is simultatneously theologically, logically and historically unsound. An overwhelmingly illiterate populace, very few printed books, there was only interpretation and access through a vertically oriented distribution of the gospel of Jesus. We can theorize all we want, we can seek our own selfish certainty all we want but we cannot in intellectual and faithful sincerity accept this idea of exclusive scriptural authority. Reality does not allow this approach to be true. If that isn't enough then, simply look at the fruits of personal interpretation of scripture post printing press/reformation. Look at the current debauchery of christianity worldwide. Authoritative scripture? yes. Exclusive authority? No. You've simply replaced the Catholic Pope with "Scripture" and turned it into an idol (both are equally problematic) This is a terribly and horrifically slippery slope.
@@theSpaghettimeister you are 100% spot on. the greatest and most faithful of all of us were those in the first 3 centuries of Christianity. Men and women who gave everything for Christ in a world that was predominantly illiterate, in the absence of any scripture for part of century 1, in the predominant absence of books for the most part (century 2 and 3), and where scripture was in fact available history shows us quite clearly that scripture was distributed and interpreted on a vertical top down trajectory. Any other distribution would have been impossible. To not include this as context for evaluation is a fools errand. 1500 years of misinterpreted scripture and or absence of oral teaching leading to 1500 years of "doing it wrong" just isn't a logical, rational, reasonable, nor faithful conclusion. In fact one really has to ask... did our Lord and Savior FORGET to leave a book? Did he FORGET to bring it in writing? Did he FORGET to distribute the books. He had no issue with the wine, the fish, etc.... I am confident He would have had no problem with books at all. ;-). This notion of scriptural deconstruction is purely a western oddity
@@FaithinChristCrucifiedso the people who supposedly so drastically deviated from what Christ wanted are also the people who you trust to give you the Scriptures? They’re the same ones who canonised the Canon of Scripture for you. By your logic even the Scriptures themselves can’t be trusted because it was men who deviated away from God that collected and gave authority to the text. Your argument would render Gnosticism valid. Furthermore your “plain” reading of Scripture is different from my “plain” reading of Scripture…so how do we answer this disagreement/discrepancy? If Scripture is so clear why can’t millions of Protestants agree on what it teaches? I used to be a Protestant, every year there was a new “revelation” on what Scripture meant.
No magic tricks needed. No one can say Jesus is Lord with faith without having the Holy Spirit. If Jesus is your Lord, the Holy Spirit is with you. Walk in step with Him. Call upon Him. Come Holy Spirit live in me, pray in me, cleanse me, sanctify me....
An elder recommended that i pray the Psalter shortly after i was baptized, and its become my favorite time of the day. I started with a few a day, and now i go through the whole collection every week. It used to be common practice for the laity to do this, not just monastics. The htm psalter has the schedule in the back. Also would recommend "Christ in the Psalms" by Fr Patrick Henry Reardon amd "Psalms and the Life of Faith" by Fr Aimilianos of Simonopetra
Thank you. Returning to scripture is hardly stumbling, even though for me it is yet another U turn! Those who conflate the Christian Way with their adopted ecclesiastical institution can't stomach that! In all, I lean on and look to Christ and if tge ceremonies don't check out, they don't check out whether they be 1000 or even 2000 years old! May the Lord guide us, as you say.
Greetings in Christ! I have been watching your videos today, and am very grateful to God, for the work you are doing here! Your Scottish background resonates with me, as my wife and I came into Orthodoxy over 20 years ago, as the result of a prayer/study group, whose focus was on ancient Celtic Christianity. Our entire group saw the continuity of the ancient Celtic Church with Orthodoxy, and we all were received in the Church. Your talks are very helpful, and a real blessing! Thank you! ☦️
You seem to misunderstand “salvation” in Orthodoxy. It’s used in two ways. In one way that says Christ did defeat sin and did conquer death, for all mankind. That’s why all of humanity will resurrect and live eternally (how that eternal life is experienced as heaven or hell is for another discussion). But Christ has conquered death, and sin is used in the Bible and the early Church synonymously with death. That’s why you and I can still commit actual sins, because Christ defeating sin is about defeating death. If it were about literally defeating sin, then all of us wouldn’t be capable of sinning. Salvation is used in another sense to refer to becoming a changed person in this life, not the next life to come. Because we love God, we want to become more like Him and experience intimate communion with the God right here and now. God can save anyone, in terms of the next life, and indeed we have many stories throughout Orthodoxy tradition of people who were not ascetics and not even living a fraction of a Christian life but God accepted them into paradise. But salvation in this life is about conquering our passions now. Don’t we all want to try and stop being less of our broken selves, don’t we all want to become more loving and compassionate and patient? Don’t we all seek to taste the sweetness of God’s peace right here and now which allows us to deal with everything this broken and fallen world throws at us. If so, then that’s what this life is about. That’s what asceticism is about. Asceticism isn’t for God, He doesn’t need it or even requires it or anything for Himself. We used these things as tools to battle against the flesh. I don’t want to be lustful, and asceticism helped with that. Asceticism is about loving God’s beauty and grace and mercy and wanting to become more like that. Anyone that has genuinely given asceticism an attempt with humility and love will testify for the results. Asceticism is about making your body and mind an empty home for God to come and dwell in, and when He dwells within that home He reveals to you the beauty of Him and of yourself…the beauty of man, which is truly beautiful because God has made us with love. I wrote a little article on Love for God and God’s love for us. I would love to email it to you and for you to read it and to give me your feedback. I believe it will speak to your heart, as I find we are quite a like in spirit. God’s blessings be with you.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Pantocrato, rules the heaven and the earth from the Orthodox Church, and He continues to do so today until the end of time. It must not be expected of a secular protestant modernist to understand what that entails. It was not expected of you too. Repentance is difficult and so the dog will returns to its vomit.
My first experience of, and I'll use the word " Feeling " the Holy Spirit, come into my heart via prayer, was through The Holy Rosary, the Latin version, and this was back in 1992. You are probably worse at being " Double Minded " than your youtube audience, which I include myself. I don't believe for second, that you really don't knowhat's meant by the term, Holy Theotokos Save us, nope, not at all.
She is blessed among all women, the mother of our God. But asking her to save us is unfortunate language, if the liturgy is to teach us how to enter into the heavenly Temple through our great High Priest Jesus. Anyway polemics has no end! Thanks for your comment.
@@FaithinChristCrucified if that language is unfortunate the the Bible is unfortunate since St. Paul uses the same language about himself: “to the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” 1 Corinthians 9:22
@@NoeticInsightOK but do we exclaim: st Paul save us? We understand Paul well enough...without making him the centre of our worship. Good point though!
@@FaithinChristCrucified Yes we do actually. Many of our prayers to different Saints we will use the same language. Ultimately, we all know only God can save in an actual literal and ontological sense. And the Theotokos is certainly not the centre of our worship. Go take the texts of the Divine Liturgy, or even take the entire texts of all our services (the Horologion) and pay attention to how often we pray to the Theotokos and how often we pray to God. It’s something like 90-95% of prayers to God and then a few prayers to the Theotokos. To claim she is the centre of our worship is very dishonest and disingenuous. I don’t consider you a dishonest person, so I don’t take it to be you intentionally mischaracterising Orthodoxy. You’re clearly burnt out and hurt over some issues, and it’s resulted in a reaction against it. It seems in Orthodoxy you don’t know how to live it fully without being tempted or made to feel/internalise to run off to a monastery and become a monk. That’s obviously not pleasant, since you’re married and you love your wife. But this is a demonic temptation, it isn’t from God and it isn’t true to Orthodoxy. You don’t need to run away from Orthodoxy to feel secure and battle that temptation. The Kingdom is in your heart dear brother. And if you want to share that Kingdom with others, to be salt of the earth, you have to nurture your heart and simply open your heart to others in love. It’s not complicated. You probably shouldn’t be reading high level monastic hesychastic books if you struggle with not being sure how to apply that as a layman in the world, if you feel tempted to run off, and ultimately leads you into a certain despair so you run back to a more Protestant type spirituality to calm yourself down aka to cope. Stick to Scripture, the lives of the Saints, and ultimately just to prayer, the Liturgy, and loving thy neighbour. The peace is all there brother, don’t hide the peace by complicating it with too much noise and layers.
I understand where you are now , i am an orthodox christian who loved zen buddhism and hinduism and i understand you i understand where you are a little , but have you read the book christ the eternal tao ? . GOD does not change , is taoism a true way ? No does it have some truth in it ? Yes ofcourse. But what christ did he combined heaven and earth together thats why inner prayer of the heart and the phyisical holy eucharist both are needed , can a bread and wine become the body and blood of christ without the holy spirit ? No , it happens with our prayers but is that all we need ? Not really , jesus christ said and teached many things , he could have said just eat my body and drink my blood and thats it , but no we need prayers and yes the prayer of the heart is biblical and theosis is biblical all of it are in the bible , dont let the devil fool you my brother , yes i get angry many times at the church it happens but inner prayer inner spirtual life and outer life must become one . New age and hinduism learned a lot from early christianity , in ur video u said orthodoxy is buddhism . Well i would say buddhism and hinduism and taoism are all in orthodoxy orthodoxt is the fullness of the truth
I agree. I think we can see a variety of doctrines in scripture when we tune our eyes. Theosis being, I think being most abundantly explicit and central but also, The intercession of the saints The Eucharist Baptismal Regeneration Apostolic oral tradition These are enough to give me pause and reconsider how I even approach scripture. I think Protestantism is convincing if we presuppose the centrality of the bible alone but early Christians didn't have a single corpus. They had scrolls and these Christian communities related to the apostles as shepherds, "even as Jesus Christ" (St Ignatius). Protestantism is convincing if we agree with the presuppositions about what the word of God is - that it's a 66 book closed canon. But as soon as you ask, "well, where did this canon come from?", you are placed right in the middle of Church history, in the context of the holy fathers and the ecumenical councils and as a protestant, you now have to wrestle with the incoherence of scripture being the word of God but it having been completely misunderstood for 1500 years. And God not having fulfilled his promise to guide the Church "to the end of the age". Apart from this, what I do not see in the scripture is sola fide and I think an investigation into the origin of that doctrine will reveal the shady manipulation of scripture (as well as the convenient dismissal of texts like 1 and 2 Maccabees) that is needed in order to arrive at that conclusion. "Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]). - St Basil “It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]). - St Epiphanius
@@FaithinChristCrucified I think that’s what I’ve been wrestling with, the “personal” sphere. I’ve only known Protestantism since coming to faith but as I’ve grown in my faith, I’ve consistently encountered the problem of relativism. This problem surfaces not just online and stuff like that but in real time where people interpret the scriptures wildly different and self-validate their own interpretation on the basis of their personal understanding. Furthermore, I’ve realized that so many verses in scripture which bother the modern person, bother the modern person because they can’t help but read through the modern paradigm that has arisen as a consequence of the enlightenment. These enlightenment values have seeped into our unconscious to the degree that they inform a deep dimension of private identity without our conscious awareness of their origin. The biblical authors were not adherents to post enlightenment values. Now two fundamental issues subsist in Protestantism which I encounter regularly 1) the tendency to interpret the scriptures according to a neo-platonic philosophy. The physical elements of Christianity exist in Protestantism only in the most abstract sense. Baptism is a symbol. The Eucharist is a symbol. The Church is invisible, etc. 2) the tendency towards relativism. The individualization of Christianity is a modern phenomenon that needs to be understood within the context of cultural and technological developments without which Protestantism as such could not exist. 3) the purpose of the reformation. What is the purpose of the reformation if not to cease the innovations of the Catholic Church in subordination to the divinely inspired apostolic tradition? If this is the purpose of the reformation, we should seek the apostolic faith irregardless of whether or not it is convenient. Unfortunately, in my experience, too many believers have a lukewarm faith that presumes the will of God to be in alignment with our modern desires. This is not biblical Okay that’s my rant. I’m not criticizing your personal perspective, but I am trying to voice what I’ve been wrestling with. I have come to personally believe that Protestantism is fundamentally flawed. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t done good things. It definitely has and God has worked with and through it but nontheless, I believe Protestantism is a further distancing from the apostolic faith and not a pilgrimage towards it.
So where does this leave you church-wise? It's only a few months ago since your wonderful video on the Orthodox monastery in Essex and how your experience of Divine Liturgy there showed up the over-rationality of Rome and gave you such a vivid sense of contact with the Lord. You'd talk a lot about the heart in those days and its inestimable value. But in this video you speak directly against this emphasis on the heart. You sound really down on Orthodoxy atm. Can you take on board these Protestant insights and absorb them into your Orthodox faith or do you feel you're being called into another expression of faith? In Christ, John.
The emphasis on the heart is driving me to an anti-rational form of meditation and a desire to run off to a monastery. For me, that's a cowardly move. Further, the ecclesiastical exclusivism and clerocentrism and hierarchical emphasis is quite suffocating and very frustrating in EO. Deep in the Word I find all this is barely there in the scriptures. So the medieval framework may have to go. Its not exactly ideal for mission in England's cities. I want more than nice ceremonies, powerful feelings and an unbiblical emphasis on retreat and quietism. God has me in a city, among people, teaching...ecclesiastical exclusivism reaches a tiny high brow sector of Western people! Just some thoughts...one can't deny the beauty of the liturgy and even of hesychasm, but how loyal is it to the primordial Apostolic faith as seen in the Bible? This is the question. Ancient does not mean Biblical.
@@FaithinChristCrucified Great answer. Really clear and honest. Thank you. Personally, I'm on the same page as Josiah in his long comment elsewhere on this thread. I believe the Bible finds its meaning and purpose in the wider context of the life of the Church. But even if I'm wrong and it doesn't the question for yourself I think is this. How long before the limitations of a strictly Word-based faith begin to make themselves felt? Will you then feel a pull again towards the liturgical church, Catholic or Orthodox. And then after a while you become conscious once more of accretions and what have you and become drawn to the radical simplicity and practicality of Protestantism? You've been deeply involved in each of the 3 great Christian traditions. Is there not a danger that you could end up bouncing around between the 3 of them? Have you spoken to the monks at Essex? You placed great store in them not long ago. But these are deep and personal matters. But, as I say, I commend your honesty and sincerity and sheer devotion to the Lord and your determination to find Him and be with Him.
@@Taliessin70thanks man! There's some great wisdom there. My wife is still a committed Catholic. I hear you with the bobbing around thing...As for Essex, their reality is very far from my reality. Very far indeed. I feel a call away from interior style prayer and hesychasm which doesn't work in urban England. I haven't fully nailed my flag to an ecclesiastical post and see nothing that grips me sufficiently in any parish church of any branch and monasticism is out of the question and quasi- monasticism is non descript: a failure to embrace the great mission of intercession and service set before me. But through it all, I lean on Christ more and look to Him. Your prayers and thanks again.
The eye cannot say to the hand “I have no need of you.” Monasticism is not for everyone. The monks serve their purpose; the laity, theirs. The world would fall apart without the monks. I encourage you to check out “The Mountain of Silence.” There are some good answers to the concerns you’ve expressed about leaving the world and living in solitude. God be with you
After watching your content for some time I’ve noticed you really oscillate between a select variety of different perceptions and agree with a multitude of authors - but where exactly you ground your spirituality seems to be an as yet to be determined potentiality. It feels like you are trying to grow a garden with all the fruit under the sun but you don’t have the space for it. The result is that you shade out the good fruit that you have and what is left is competing plants, competing ideas, convoluted perceptions. Latin confundere Mingle together From which we get the word “Confused”.
Well thanks. Life is complex my friend! At the moment I'm sticking close to the Word of God than mystical interior prayer. It's Biblical to do so! Your prayers.
Qhy do you try to teach? Are you some kind of Mystic? Did God impart some kind of knowledge upon you to become a theologian. You read some books, and now you try to be some kind of Saint speaking to the masses. Stop talking you're making a fool of yourself. You know what all those who think they know know nothing.
Thank God we have you to teach us about what the word of God is. If we didn't have you we'd have the Pope. Your knowledge and your greatness reminds me of the eunuch. Too bad you didn't read that passage. You can't understand what you understand with your own mind son.
Oh so the Word of God is too unclear for the peasants. Keep it latin, keep it in slavonic, keep it in the church! Scripture describes itself as plain enough...to be read and followed by all. If you don't like my reflections "son" 😂 don't tune in! ❤ Every Christian has the Holy Spirit to guide us. Rm 8, 9. It is not a prize of hesychasm or mysticism.
“Protestants sing amazing grace amazingly, because they know they’re amazingly saved by an All Gracious God.” Love it. I have found that my low-church Protestant friends know nothing (but the Bible), yet they love Jesus. My Orthodox friends are heavy in the pursuit of theology and philosophy and academic studies, and they love the Church. My Protestant friends have a personal relationship with Jesus. My Orthodox friends have a personal relationship with Mary or another saint. That being what it is, brother, have you seen the state of Protestantism? It’s been eaten from the inside out by parasites.
Keep it up Brother. A friend and I are speaking together about your videos and we are loving them. We’re right in the same space and really appreciate the truth your speaking. Coming from Orthodoxy we can really relate. God bless!
Yes... As Joshua said, your content is encouraging those of us on the same journey. God has done some major uprooting in my life to get me back into scriptures and to question "the traditions of the elders". I am thankful for God's longsuffering and patience... That gives us time to repent and grown. Stay strong... Many will missunderstand. God Bless!
You're probably telling the truth. You're probably relaying that which is absolutely true be careful son this is the devil's Channel. Just do this pray without ceasing pray three times a day do your prostrations, and don't worry about this silly man he thinks he knows and those who think they know know nothing.
@@hesicastbye bye hesicast! 👋 Your advice is barely biblical. Check everything with Scripture! If that is the devil's channel...then we disagree! God bless.
@@hesicastdear brother there is no need to be so harsh with him. He is struggling with his faith, why do you not show compassion? Have we not all been in this position one way or another? God forbid I judge him when I know how patient God was with me throughout the years of me questioning everything under the sun. Pray for him, he needs our prayers not our condemnation.
@@NoeticInsight humour comes in all shapes and sizes son. If someone speaks to teach and they act as if they are the authority, well sometimes we add to their humour. Unfortunately he's not asking if he's teaching. He's taking a powerful thing and trying to direct. He's fair game.
In Protestantism the focus is on transforming the world, bringing the kingdom of God to the world through our actions. Post millennialist mindset where Christians are called to be salt and light. We are called to live our best life now, to enjoy wealth and success and to pursue our own desires all the while glorifying God because he has given us this life as a gift, not as something to be denied but something to be embraced and enjoyed. Once you are saved, what’s there to do? There’s nothing else to do, but to enjoy life and tell people about Jesus. Once you are saved, there’s no need to fix your eyes on heaven but rather to focus your eyes on earth, and to enjoy this life. But in all seriousness, when I was an evangelical Protestant the focus was all on the world. There’s nothing really spiritual about Protestantism, it’s all about this post millennialist mindset where things are going to get continuously better through Christian influence. It’s our job to bring heaven to earth, when I believe that this is not the case. Only almighty God can transform the cosmos into a utopia at the eschaton. It’s Protestantism that I find man centered, not Orthodoxy
There are a few things that I really think need to be said here, but there will be insufficient detail due to limitations on time. 1. Just because Church Fathers used Platonic language doesn't necessarily mean that they are influenced into falsehood or confusion by Platonic thought. The Desert Fathers, speaking about _nepsis_ and _hesychia_ are often speaking in terms that are more familiar to Buddhists or Hindus, but we don't generally see people assuming that they were influenced into falsehood or confusion by the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama. There will necessarily be some overlap in spiritual practices, because wheels must be round if they are to roll. 2. To borrow from the allegory of the cave and say that Christianity has taken on this idea of 'transcending the flesh with reason' and to later to critique mystical prayer as being a way to transcend thought seems to be an odd choice. Middle Platonism and neoplatonism, contemporary to the rise of the Church, were both very much about this idea that intellectual meditation alone would lead someone to the true light. From the Desert Fathers and through most of Byzantine theological history, this kind of distinction and interior contradiction has been rejected. St Maximus seems to have systematized the process in his discussion of the interior unions that happen in the mystical life, bringing the mind, body, and soul into direct, non-contradictory union with each other as they grow in union with God. It's much closer to Buddhist or Stoic thinking than Neoplatonic thinking as a result. 3. At least in the Philokalia and the spiritual guides I've met, the emphasis of ascesis is only loosely related to Plato's allegory of the cave or similar ideas. For example, the cultivation of _nepsis_ is not about rejecting creation or ignoring the body, it's about a transformed interior world that necessarily requires change in the exterior world. As one's awareness and watchfulness increases internally, so does their external virtue and righteousness. None of this is foreign to Scripture, even the way I used to read Scripture as a Protestant eventually led to a place where the category of "mystical prayer" seemed necessary for one to align their whole life with the Christian path. 4. A total rejection of Creation isn't taught by virtually anyone, least of all Orthodoxy. There is a great emphasis on simplicity and straightforward living, and a recognition of the need for ascesis to train oneself to live that simple life. None of this rejects Creation. The simpler my life has become, largely through ascetical means and mystical prayer, the more I engage in the real elements of life and shed the false elements. I spend less time arguing about nonsense, wasting time worrying about politics, fretting over money or material possessions that are not necessary to keep going, and so on. That now freed-up time is spent not only in prayer, but also engaging more with real people and their concerns, real issues in a community, nature itself, animals, and so on. 5. Especially as time has passed, Orthodoxy has come to recognize that there needs to be more written for the laity, but we've only seen the rise of this content on mystical prayer in the writings of people like St Nektarios or St Paisios. I suspect that most things we read now were written for monastics (who were more literate than the rest of the population) and were understood in that context. When a layperson reads "you should give up all worldly possessions and live interiorly," this sounds like they need to swear off their wife, abandon their kids, and run off into the desert to pray. In reality, this was written to those who had _already_ sought to give up their external life and were being counseled on becoming a more interior person. I will freely admit that the draconian policies about the flesh in place in some ancient local canons or early medieval Fathers leans more to that 'utter rejection of Creation' side. When you have people sincerely arguing that intimacy within a marriage is evil if it leads to enjoyment, or saying that we endanger our souls if we consume any dairy during Lent, or act like swallowing your spit could be a violation of your Sunday fasting practice, something is wrong. I don't think that this was ever the dominant sense among the mind of the faithful, and the infallibility of the Church (in Orthodox dogmatics) is linked not only to the Episcopate or the Patriarchs, but to what the Catholics call the _sensus fidelium_. Honestly, I think the bigger problem we are facing is that we treat Hesychasm almost as some kind of occult knowledge. Becoming watchful/mindful within the context of a non-monastic Christian life is just as helpful as becoming watchful/mindful within the context of a monastic life. Lived out according to your station in life, this practice is anything but gnostic or overly interior, it's a process of reaching out to God more and more without refusing his efforts to transform us. We just need to translate the meaning beyond the monastic experience so it is intelligible to the laity.
Is there a worry that we might over emphasize a certain elitist attitudes. It seems to me theres three dangers: 1. Scripture is authoritative ergo my interpretation of scripture is authoritative and you must assent to it. There will always be an innate epistemological distinction between the intepretation and the authoratatuve teaching os scripture. The goal is have the two line up to the best of ones ability but its dangerous if we automatically assume our reading as fact and then enforce it with the authority of God behins our fixed interpretation. It seems like it might be helpful to have a different hermeneutic. Henri Lubac's stuff on Origen is really good on this. 2. Conflating the bible with "my bible." Specifically a lot of proestant theology can run into a bias where it may be self enforcing. DBH has a lot of great stuff on this and especially if you read his translation of the new Testament it certainly seems that theres a good case to be made that protestant translators assume some of their modern theological texts into the work. Hart talks about this very well, as well as others. 3. This leads into a third concern it might produce a kind of alienated elitism to where only a select scholars are in a position to interpret scripture because the historical, linguistic, philosophical knowledge needed to engage everything in Holy Scripture. Lastly, I think its a very interesting question about contemplation vs. action. Is the inward retreat a mistake? And I think one concern may we may have too western a conception, that is deeply industrial. People and vocations are evaluated merely on their usefulness to a broader context and narrative. A cog in a wheel. On one hand, as it felt in my protestant uprining this can sometimes lean into an idea that God needs us to spresd the gospel, needs us to save people. God wants to use us and our transfiguration has to so with loving others by sharing the Spirit and Gospel of our Lord Jesus, but he does not need us. The second concern is that it may demolish who some people are to have a one size fits all vocation. Ive been reading the mountain of silence which is like part memoir, travelogue, and orthodox spirituality all together, and Fr. Maximos talks with a Christian who is skeptical of monasticism on this point. At one point theres a young doctor who is a novice and the man makes the point that wouldnt it had been better off if the man used his abilities as a doctor to help people in some impoverished nation and spread the Gospel through that means. And the doctor simply answers that he doesnt know but that he felt such a burning desire to be a monk that if he didnt become one he felt like he would surely dir. And Fr. Maximos remarks is that we see everything in terms of utilitarian usefulness rather than starting with who someone is as a person. The life of contemplation and action are one, insofar as in stillness we throw away our cares and open ourselves completely, no longing judging ourselves trying to figure out whats "right." But we simply allow ours3lves to be who we before Christ and before the world. Any goodness or grace produced must come from the overflow of that authentic discovery of our deepest self in Chrisg, letting go of, perhaps even qyite sound thoughts and messaging about what we ought to be and hiw we must be different than what we are. Simply living in that stillness where everything we have ever desired is already present in Christ. This is what is offered in the incarnation that Christ identifies even with me and comes to live in me as my one true self. Theres a temptation in the active life to have the cause serve our false self and our own faithless need for self justification. In the contemplative life there is the temptation to introversion, by whcih rather than loving my neighbor in then Oneness of Christs solitude in the desert and the garden i seek to avoid him because i cannot face my own insecurity beofre him because I do not really believe in Christs love. All things in balance, some I think are called more to one side of the spectrum than others, but a personal faith, a pistis, far from a propositional assent, a deep personal encounter and openess with the Infinite revealed in human flesh is the bedrock of Christian life, ministry and theology. Some thought thay I hope arent too montonous. As always i love watching these and thinking. My prayers and joy are with you brother 🫡 I also have to mention im biased because I love neoplatonism and see that it only really makes sense fully in the early church fathers. The Trinity and the Incarnation resolves the problems of Neoplatonism (And if they were very Platonic its because Paul was also very Platonic.) "In whom we live and move and have our being..."
Wow, thanks for your mini essay and without animosity! I hear you on the private interpretation front. But interpretation is unavoidable and we all have it. If I embrace a church or church father's interpretation I have personally interpreted assent to their teaching! One key idea of the Reformation was the clarity of scripture. God meant it to be clear. The Gospel of God: our wholesale corruption, our need for Redemption at every level and this through the Atoning sacrifice of Jesus (rather than by ascetical or philosophical assent to God) who sets us right with God in order not to obsess over our own assent (as God has secured that Eph 2,1) or sinfulness (like st Mary of Egypt in the deserr) but to get on and live in God's Creation secure in His Justification (the righteousness of God) and knowing that we are his children being sanctified through the Author and finisher of our faith. As a lay person it strikes me as infinitely healthier and more Biblical of late, than trying to live a pert time quasi monastical existence while having to live in the world and engage with it so fully. Also the cyclical prayer of the heart was becoming a form of shut down; neglect of charity and almost a locked in syndrome! I'm not convinced that the main thrust of the Biblical sources is "Go inside and you will find rest." Is that more Buddhist than Biblical? Look to Christ in all his OT and NT richness and you will find rest in all he has done for you and in his priestly intercession and entering into its rythm: ABBA, Father...forgive them, they know not what they do...Presently that makes most sense. Drinking deep at the sources of salvation!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts in these videos. There are many of is who are wrestling with the same ideas. I find your videos a source of encouragement. Thanks for sharing.
What draws you to Calvinism, which says God preordains all things that come to pass, including child rape. From a Calvinist perspective, the damned are like the fuel for God’s fireplace. Nobody can choose God for themselves. No man comes to God unless God elects him and makes him alive. But God doesn’t do this for everyone even though he can, but elects a remnant of people to salvation, out of all the people drowning in the sea he only saves a few and allows the rest to perish. Calvinism makes God worse than Satan.
@BabylonianCaptivity not sure why you're hearting my comment when I'm saying it's pure cope from you Prots. The fact remains, to be deep in history is cease being Prot. You can't learn all of church history and remain a Protestant heretic.
I am not sure it is correct to say or assume that the apostles or first century Church didn't have the concept of priesthood. Dr. Pitre argues the opposite: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aP1oxGv8nps.htmlsi=KrYLybPbEjligEl-
Yes he would! But was it a Roman priesthood, a coptic or an EO one? Neither! And how to square with fhe essential message of the NT? Priests just don't feature, but later take centre stage! It has accretion written all over it. The priests are all Christian believers in the NT. Worship changed and evolved of course. So particular liturgy can't claim to be Apostolic.
@@FaithinChristCrucified Built in your answer is a faulty assumption that there is a difference in priesthood between Catholics, EO and Coptics, there is none. There are all valid priesthood since they all have apostolic succession. This dichotomy would be more appropriate to ask protestants which is a nebuleous appelation, which protestantism is right? Anglicanism, Lutherianism, etc? Priesthood do feature as Dr. Pitre correctly points out in the short video I shared earlier. What you label accretion is simply development. The priesthood of all believers are in no way in conflict with the ministerial priesthood in the New Testament. It is not a either-or scenario but a both-and.
If there is no difference why all the anathemas between them? Why do Orthodox largely say the RC sacraments (its Eucharist and even its Baptisms)are illicit and even invalid? Its inbuilt institutional division. I follow Christ with freedom in or outside the walls of these mutually exclusive institutions. May their beauty give Glory to God but their unbiblical bolt ons/ errors not bind me. @@ericgatera7149
@@FaithinChristCrucified If you check your histotical record, the anathema are not focused on the priesthood per se. The Orthodox have unfortunately no central authority just like Protestants, so anyone can say whatever he wants and that will not bind other members in different autocephalous. Those saying what you said, only represent their own opinion and not that of the whole Orthodox churches. This is the sad state of affair in which they currently are. Yes, Orthodox churches is an in-built institutional divisions just like in every different protestant denominations. We all claim to follow Christ, but this was not the point of your video-review.
@t.l.ciottoli4319, Online Orthodoxy, does exist, and it is simultaneously Venom & Anti Venom, and this is why its a tragedy. Also regarding, Online Orthodoxy, It's as if it only exists to be neither Catholic nor Protestant, and therefore, does not exist to be "ChristIan", ie Christ's True Church, as they would like to declare.
