Clergy & Monastics Father Andrew Damick

JustinHS

Sparrow
Orthodox
FWIW I understand Fr. Andrew’s POV regarding the convertitis side of things, but I have noticed a marked difference and a simmering down of online interactions between the Orthodox and heteros. I’m no longer on Twitter or FB so I can’t speak on those platforms, but last I checked, it was fairly contentious there. As far as YouTube and Gab goes, I think the Orthobros have gotten a lot more chill in the last few years.

AFR is hit or miss. You really have to discern the content on there. I do enjoy Fr. Spyridon, Josiah, Stephen D Y, and the little known Lawrence Farley, and plenty more. Fr. John White is another based priest on AFR.

I think it’s good that the hotheads are getting called out because if you think about it, online Orthodoxy is still pretty new, and the sooner that cooler heads prevail, the sooner that we attract bees with honey instead of vinegar.
 

Lawrence87

Robin
Orthodox
Even assuming for the sake of argument that Fr. Andrew is correct in his assessment of these online Orthodox people (I don't think that personally, but lets just assume it for the sake of argument). I'm not really sure what the big worry is. You cannot be Orthodox if you are not a baptized and chrismated into the Church, and to do those things you need some level of involvement with a priest. It's not like you can really lead an Orthodox life just watching stuff online. Given that, then even assuming the worst and that people are being misled, then they should be getting corrected by their Spiritual Fathers as far as matters pertaining to their conduct is concerned. If they are disobedient to their priest, that is hardly the fault of the YouTuber...

I think this is more of a political thing. Fr. Andrew is not really worried about these people being led into sin, or heresy, but rather that they are being led into views that he disagrees with. This is probably why he won't name names because he doesn't want to get into specifics.
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
Even assuming for the sake of argument that Fr. Andrew is correct in his assessment of these online Orthodox people (I don't think that personally, but lets just assume it for the sake of argument). I'm not really sure what the big worry is. You cannot be Orthodox if you are not a baptized and chrismated into the Church, and to do those things you need some level of involvement with a priest. It's not like you can really lead an Orthodox life just watching stuff online. Given that, then even assuming the worst and that people are being misled, then they should be getting corrected by their Spiritual Fathers as far as matters pertaining to their conduct is concerned. If they are disobedient to their priest, that is hardly the fault of the YouTuber...
This is a great point. I don't want to dive into what Fr. Andrew's motives are.
 

Yallbeparticular

Pigeon
Orthodox
Unfortunately Father Andrew took a huge swipe at the Orthosphere during his recent Gospel Simplicity interview. Given how sharp he normally is it made me think there is something personal behind it all (though of course there was truth in what he said). I have no way of knowing but I was floored when on several occasions he referred to himself as a "professional communicator" (as if that is not an obvious swipe, lol) and pointed out some non-controversial background info that clearly let those in the know figure out who he was referencing without of course naming names.

At any rate the Orthodox Church has a long history of lay theologians. I believe what is happening now via the internet (going where all the eyeballs are) is a necessary corrective to some weaknesses in the Orthodox leadership in America.
Well his alternative to the orthodox internet is this new site he has that directs people to Ancient Faith articles, Ancient Faith videos, and Ancient Faith… *merchandise*. It’s might have some helpful info but it looks like a marketing gimmick. There are many sources that have much more quality information. Like St Nicodemos Publications (Constantine Zalalas). I’ve learned way more quality information from Constantine (a Greek lay teacher) than anyone on Ancient Faith. He also is under the influence of great spiritual fathers. You also won’t hear any ecumenism, secularism, or covidianism from him. Also, the old Orthodoxinfo site is still on believe it or not! It’s great as well. And don’t forget Orthodox Ethos / Fr Peter Heers. Also has great content and great classes. None of these are commercialized like AFR. AFR reminds me of the many years I was in the Protestants in the 90s/2000s and Protestants have their flavor of the month or year. One year it was Prayer of Jabez, another year Passion of the Christ. With AFR it’s like that. One year it’s Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy now it’s Religion of the Apostles.
 

Roosh

Cardinal
Orthodox
I added some new guidelines to this subforums sticky thread about discussing active clergy. Otherwise, things will get out of hand quickly.
How to conduct discussions involving active Eastern Orthodox clergy
  • Use caution to not turn this subforum into a gossip corner where we critique and nitpick, even if we have valid concerns.
  • Be very thoughtful before posting any critique on active clergy. Remember that this forum is public.
  • Do not share any private knowledge or unsourced suspicions that a priest has done something incorrect or non-Orthodox, whereby his reputation would be hurt (i.e. gossip).
  • Do not share private communications without explicit consent.
  • Do not read into the potential motivations of a priest to try and understand his actions (i.e. mind-read).
  • You may comment on public actions and statements on a priest, but from a position of understanding and compassion. Don't be quick to attack out of anger.
  • Do not call a priest a "heretic" or "ecumenist" unless a label has been given to him by an ordained member of the Church. Only use adjectives that refer to specific behaviors (e.g. "Concelebrating with the Anglican priest was an ecumenical gesture.")
Satan will strong tempt us to attack active clergy for issues small and large. It's okay to disagree with opinions and actions of clergy, but be respectful and delicate when doing so.
 
Last edited:

Serge Korol

Pigeon
Orthodox
I wish there were more Priest and Bishops stepping up to the plate and actually do what Br Augustine and Roosh are doing, i.e. putting themselves on the internet and actually go after some of the heresies that abound in the "christian world". All I see is a bunch of silence from them and no leadership, outside of criticism of the Orthodox laymen.
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
I wish there were more Priest and Bishops stepping up to the plate and actually do what Br Augustine and Roosh are doing, i.e. putting themselves on the internet and actually go after some of the heresies that abound in the "christian world". All I see is a bunch of silence from them and no leadership, outside of criticism of the Orthodox laymen.
It’s better in other countries.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Orthodox
I don’t see anything wrong about what that statement said, far from leftism. Race was historically tied to ethnicity, and specifically which god you worship (pre-modernism). It wasn’t until the 1800s that race shifted into being about melanin content (modernism) and connected to Darwinism.

You sure about that? If this statement was written in the 1800s, there would be slightly less problems with it. We're living in an age of mass transport, mass migration of peoples, so much so that ethnicity has largely been reduced in America/Canada to biological appearance, especially with the rise of the suburbs and decline of ethnic neighbourhoods. To sign this sort of document while living in an empire that openly discriminates against people because they're "white", while singling out "white nationalism" as a behaviour that's leading to potential problems, is a virtue signalling act to the regime. It's only natural for people to separate themselves from a system that hates them, it's not xenophobia toward the outside world, for it's not irrational, all phobias being irrational by definition. The complete unwillingness of the clergy signing this to look at the reality of life, which conveniently doesn't ask why people feel so alienated from society to engage in the sort of behaviour which they condemn from places of comfort. For contrast, how many clergy are openly denouncing affirmative action or hiring practices where white people are openly discriminated against? How many point out interracial violence? How many denounce the diversity propaganda? How many tell their laity to get rid of their television, to isolate their minds from the constant filth that pours forth from there? I'm not saying being a priest or hierarch is an easy job, but is it too much to ask them to not sign documents with a clear political agenda?

If that weren't bad enough, the writer of the document scoured the works of the Church Fathers to quote a portion of a homily from the St Chrysostom's works to support their position, while conveniently ignoring St Chrysostom's eight homilies on the Jews then proceed to condemn antisemitism (which is never defined). Why didn't they quote this below? It's far from an isolated example.

Indeed the synagogue is less deserving of honor than any inn. It is not merely a lodging place for robbers and cheats but also for demons. This is true not only of the synagogues but also of the souls of the Jews, as I shall try to prove at the end of my homily.

No need to worry here, St John is not racist, because he doesn't say the demons lodge in their flesh, but in their souls. Or is it antisemitic to fight against spiritual dispositions? If the people you accept in a position of leadership, affirm these sort of things, and there's no pushback, then you deserve the current oppression of the Covid regime due to lack of faith.

And why say that it's only "ideal" that an Orthodox person should marry another Orthodox person. Do you think St Chrysostom would be okay with this? He consistently spoke of the married being one flesh. Would he think that it's only "ideal" that you don't cleave yourself to one who worships demons?

By the way, Fr. John Whiteford's blog has a post clarifying the statement about race.

>Imagine a white teenager, growing up in this age
>told he's evil because he's white by the media,
>responsible for the oppression of blacks through slavery
>told he has white privilege,
>looked over for jobs by the HR departments
>If he pushes back and criticises the demonic system, told he has "White Fragility".
>Tries to turns to the church for help.
>"You're not racially white, that doesn't exist. Why don't you go and tell others, that whiteness is a social construct and not real?"
>" Wow, thanks Fr. X, I'm sure "La Raza" will totally change their views and be more inclusive with this information.

While what he is saying is technically correct, telling people that race doesn't exist, and it's only appearance, while they're openly being discriminated against for that appearance, is adding insult to injury. Why did he need to add this? Does he think that "White Nationalists" are biological determinists? If so, why would they get angry at the behaviour of others? How would they explain white leftists? If Fr John thought it appropriate to post this piece, does Fr John have writings where he condemns leftist nonsense to counterbalance this? Genuinely asking here, I don't follow his work.

Feel free to PM me your thoughts. I'm not trying to derail a thread.
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
You sure about that? If this statement was written in the 1800s, there would be slightly less problems with it. We're living in an age of mass transport, mass migration of peoples, so much so that ethnicity has largely been reduced in America/Canada to biological appearance, especially with the rise of the suburbs and decline of ethnic neighbourhoods. To sign this sort of document while living in an empire that openly discriminates against people because they're "white", while singling out "white nationalism" as a behaviour that's leading to potential problems, is a virtue signalling act to the regime. It's only natural for people to separate themselves from a system that hates them, it's not xenophobia toward the outside world, for it's not irrational, all phobias being irrational by definition. The complete unwillingness of the clergy signing this to look at the reality of life, which conveniently doesn't ask why people feel so alienated from society to engage in the sort of behaviour which they condemn from places of comfort. For contrast, how many clergy are openly denouncing affirmative action or hiring practices where white people are openly discriminated against? How many point out interracial violence? How many denounce the diversity propaganda? How many tell their laity to get rid of their television, to isolate their minds from the constant filth that pours forth from there? I'm not saying being a priest or hierarch is an easy job, but is it too much to ask them to not sign documents with a clear political agenda?

If that weren't bad enough, the writer of the document scoured the works of the Church Fathers to quote a portion of a homily from the St Chrysostom's works to support their position, while conveniently ignoring St Chrysostom's eight homilies on the Jews then proceed to condemn antisemitism (which is never defined). Why didn't they quote this below? It's far from an isolated example.



No need to worry here, St John is not racist, because he doesn't say the demons lodge in their flesh, but in their souls. Or is it antisemitic to fight against spiritual dispositions? If the people you accept in a position of leadership, affirm these sort of things, and there's no pushback, then you deserve the current oppression of the Covid regime due to lack of faith.

And why say that it's only "ideal" that an Orthodox person should marry another Orthodox person. Do you think St Chrysostom would be okay with this? He consistently spoke of the married being one flesh. Would he think that it's only "ideal" that you don't cleave yourself to one who worships demons?



>Imagine a white teenager, growing up in this age
>told he's evil because he's white by the media,
>responsible for the oppression of blacks through slavery
>told he has white privilege,
>looked over for jobs by the HR departments
>If he pushes back and criticises the demonic system, told he has "White Fragility".
>Tries to turns to the church for help.
>"You're not racially white, that doesn't exist. Why don't you go and tell others, that whiteness is a social construct and not real?"
>" Wow, thanks Fr. X, I'm sure "La Raza" will totally change their views and be more inclusive with this information.

While what he is saying is technically correct, telling people that race doesn't exist, and it's only appearance, while they're openly being discriminated against for that appearance, is adding insult to injury. Why did he need to add this? Does he think that "White Nationalists" are biological determinists? If so, why would they get angry at the behaviour of others? How would they explain white leftists? If Fr John thought it appropriate to post this piece, does Fr John have writings where he condemns leftist nonsense to counterbalance this? Genuinely asking here, I don't follow his work.

Feel free to PM me your thoughts. I'm not trying to derail a thread.
He does condemn leftist nonsense, more than most American priests in fact, but this topic is a major blind spot for him.
 

Basilus of Moro

Sparrow
Orthodox
Well his alternative to the orthodox internet is this new site he has that directs people to Ancient Faith articles, Ancient Faith videos, and Ancient Faith… *merchandise*. It’s might have some helpful info but it looks like a marketing gimmick. There are many sources that have much more quality information. Like St Nicodemos Publications (Constantine Zalalas). I’ve learned way more quality information from Constantine (a Greek lay teacher) than anyone on Ancient Faith. He also is under the influence of great spiritual fathers. You also won’t hear any ecumenism, secularism, or covidianism from him. Also, the old Orthodoxinfo site is still on believe it or not! It’s great as well. And don’t forget Orthodox Ethos / Fr Peter Heers. Also has great content and great classes. None of these are commercialized like AFR. AFR reminds me of the many years I was in the Protestants in the 90s/2000s and Protestants have their flavor of the month or year. One year it was Prayer of Jabez, another year Passion of the Christ. With AFR it’s like that. One year it’s Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy now it’s Religion of the Apostles.

You’ve captured an important thing that is difficult to summarize. There is a properly Orthodox way of presenting content, even sellable content. It’s tricky to know the edge, but there is an unmistakable impression. I think it’s key that the medium in no way distorts the content, but rather merely facilitates it. With regard to AFR, it appears that the format, the style, etc. gets in the way, and creates analogies with traditional broadcasting and Protestant radio networks.

I get the same impression with Greek churches and their programs. They are moved and formed, at least by impression, by a marketing, business type mindset. It’s not organic enough, or simple enough. It’s dominated by a certain beuocracy, and jazzy spirit—Jokes and such abound in excess.

This is something to consider again and again for those of us involved with pushing content, or books. God help us to follow the right course.

If the aforementioned good examples are any guide, there should be a sober, simple, apocalyptic and prophetic character to such things. Lacking that, they seem self-moved.
 
Last edited:

Roosh

Cardinal
Orthodox
I wish there were more Priest and Bishops stepping up to the plate and actually do what Br Augustine and Roosh are doing, i.e. putting themselves on the internet and actually go after some of the heresies that abound in the "christian world". All I see is a bunch of silence from them and no leadership, outside of criticism of the Orthodox laymen.
Personally I don't see anything wrong with laymen filling the gaps. A priest simply cannot be on the internet for hours a day, consuming news, and then producing articles, videos, and live streams every week. That's a job in itself.

But the clergy should be willing to fulfill a leadership and guidance role concerning the urgent issues that face Church members. If priests are not speaking the truth while the laymen are (e.g. coronavirus vaccine) then there will be confusion and loss of faith in the Church to guide the flock. Then more people will follow the laymen for guidance, which shouldn't be the case, and Satan will use that to divide the flock. We already see with parts of GOARCH and OCA that this has started.
 

JustinHS

Sparrow
Orthodox
Just received this email:

Bp Thomas (Mid-Atlantic Antiochian diocese) confesses that 50 years ago, when he was in college, he did have a professor who specifically made fun of Christians in general, and especially those of the Eastern Orthodox Church. He openly confessed that he gave no response at all, probably because he was afraid of what the end result might be. His Grace advises everyone that before they take a job, choose an elementary school or high school or college for their children or for themselves, that they seriously visit the school and talk to as many people as possible about what they'll find in the classroom when they get there. Indeed, we should be more attentive when we shop for schools than when we buy a house or a car. His Grace also advises that we should be ready to stand up for ourselves; we should be prepared to answer questions about our faith and debate the teachings of our church with anyone and everyone. St. John of Damascus did this with the non-believers of his time, even to the point of being tortured. Finally, we cannot be defensive or overreact to an argument that we don't agree with. Piety, sanity, and doing your homework produces great results.
 

frjohnwhiteford

Chicken
Orthodox
Priest
Yeah, Ancient Faith has some good content but overall, it's always felt to me like highly commercialized Orthodoxy for boomer ex-evangelicals. Some of their podcasts and publications are good but it's not the first place I'd go.

By the way, Fr. John Whiteford's blog has a post clarifying the statement about race.
That post was actually written by Fr. Cassian Sibley. Here is a post in which I expanded on why I was involved with the statement:
https://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2018/03/answers-to-objections-to-statement.html

In short, the statement was opposed to hating people based on race, or dividing the Church on that basis. I do not support anything like open borders. I believe we should stand for what is good in our culture, and I oppose and have preached and written regularly against cultural marxism.
 

frjohnwhiteford

Chicken
Orthodox
Priest
I preach against Marxism at least once a year, and mention it far more often. Here are two examples:

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/amvon/cultural_marxism

https://saintjonah.org/sermons/burning-down-the-house/

And here is just one post on Maxism:

https://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2017/11/cultural-marxism-and-public-orthodoxy.html

I define what I mean by antisemitism in this article, and also deal extensively with St. John Chrysostom's homilies Against Judaizing Christians (which is actually the correct title of those homilies):

https://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2018/03/answers-to-objections-to-statement.html

You sure about that? If this statement was written in the 1800s, there would be slightly less problems with it. We're living in an age of mass transport, mass migration of peoples, so much so that ethnicity has largely been reduced in America/Canada to biological appearance, especially with the rise of the suburbs and decline of ethnic neighbourhoods. To sign this sort of document while living in an empire that openly discriminates against people because they're "white", while singling out "white nationalism" as a behaviour that's leading to potential problems, is a virtue signalling act to the regime. It's only natural for people to separate themselves from a system that hates them, it's not xenophobia toward the outside world, for it's not irrational, all phobias being irrational by definition. The complete unwillingness of the clergy signing this to look at the reality of life, which conveniently doesn't ask why people feel so alienated from society to engage in the sort of behaviour which they condemn from places of comfort. For contrast, how many clergy are openly denouncing affirmative action or hiring practices where white people are openly discriminated against? How many point out interracial violence? How many denounce the diversity propaganda? How many tell their laity to get rid of their television, to isolate their minds from the constant filth that pours forth from there? I'm not saying being a priest or hierarch is an easy job, but is it too much to ask them to not sign documents with a clear political agenda?

If that weren't bad enough, the writer of the document scoured the works of the Church Fathers to quote a portion of a homily from the St Chrysostom's works to support their position, while conveniently ignoring St Chrysostom's eight homilies on the Jews then proceed to condemn antisemitism (which is never defined). Why didn't they quote this below? It's far from an isolated example.



No need to worry here, St John is not racist, because he doesn't say the demons lodge in their flesh, but in their souls. Or is it antisemitic to fight against spiritual dispositions? If the people you accept in a position of leadership, affirm these sort of things, and there's no pushback, then you deserve the current oppression of the Covid regime due to lack of faith.

And why say that it's only "ideal" that an Orthodox person should marry another Orthodox person. Do you think St Chrysostom would be okay with this? He consistently spoke of the married being one flesh. Would he think that it's only "ideal" that you don't cleave yourself to one who worships demons?



>Imagine a white teenager, growing up in this age
>told he's evil because he's white by the media,
>responsible for the oppression of blacks through slavery
>told he has white privilege,
>looked over for jobs by the HR departments
>If he pushes back and criticises the demonic system, told he has "White Fragility".
>Tries to turns to the church for help.
>"You're not racially white, that doesn't exist. Why don't you go and tell others, that whiteness is a social construct and not real?"
>" Wow, thanks Fr. X, I'm sure "La Raza" will totally change their views and be more inclusive with this information.

While what he is saying is technically correct, telling people that race doesn't exist, and it's only appearance, while they're openly being discriminated against for that appearance, is adding insult to injury. Why did he need to add this? Does he think that "White Nationalists" are biological determinists? If so, why would they get angry at the behaviour of others? How would they explain white leftists? If Fr John thought it appropriate to post this piece, does Fr John have writings where he condemns leftist nonsense to counterbalance this? Genuinely asking here, I don't follow his work.

Feel free to PM me your thoughts. I'm not trying to derail a thread.
 
Top