Jay Dyer

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
@MichaelWitcoff AFAIK The only one to not sign the Council of Florence was St Mark of Ephesus, so if he was not the only Patriarch there, the statement rings untrue.

I can at least understand where the dislike for Dyer comes from, he comes across as arrogant, I can't comment on his content because I've never been able to listen to him for longer than 10 minutes. I prefer Matthew Raphael Johnson as an Orthodox lecturer/writer.
St. Mark wasn't a patriarch, just a delegate who was a Metropolitan. He's talking about the patriarchs of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, not the delegates present.
 

SilentCal

Robin
The vibe from the Dyer fans is protective and I am left feeling like there is a cult aspect to Orthodoxy for many. Any criticism is quickly dismissed. The critic is "othered" and his opinion is discarded, out of hand.

You are projecting. There is zero hate from Catholics towards Dyer here. The opposite. There is justified criticism of a questionable public figure. Your judging of us as "self-described Catholics" is an insult which is all too common from many Orthodox posters on here. You are the least Christian people I know of on the forum when it comes to Catholics and mocking our pope, hierarchy and faith.

You still dismiss the legitimate points raised, in a reflexive manner which suggests to me that Dyer is beyond criticism for Orthodox and others (read: non-Catholic).

Again, you make my point that the purpose of Dyer is to drive a wedge between Catholics and Orthodox. A true Christian would seek reconciliation and unity. It is plain as day to all that Dyer's purpose is division and disunity. I mean this is all so totally obvious to everyone, but there is this cultish behaviour whereby Orthodox close ranks and protect a man who has a quite checkered past and continues today to behave in all sorts of questionable ways. How much more obvious does this have to be.
Don’t agree with everything you said, but I agree his following is cultish, he has some odd interests to say the least, and he does seem to promote division. He also really seems to enjoy insulting Catholics.
 

NickK

Woodpecker
Orthodox
I can at least understand where the dislike for Dyer comes from, he comes across as arrogant,
He just calls a spade a spade. I prefer that to fake humility.

I mainly watch his videos on theology, can't watch his videos on Hollywood, espionage, occult etc. Not that they are bad, but I just can't watch them.
And I don't like his thumbnails.

Otherwise, his theology is super solid, he is funny and he has the right attitude towards heretics, which produces fruit: many converted to the True Church thanks to his ministry.
 

iop890

Peacock
Gold Member
For me the point of Dyer is to steer young men away from Catholicism and into Orthodoxy.

Well he's an Orthodox apologist so yeah, I'd say you're on to something here.

A true Christian would seek reconciliation and unity. It is plain as day to all that Dyer's purpose is division and disunity.

What does this really mean in practice though? There are serious doctrinal differences between Catholics and Orthodox, contradictions that can't just be handwaved away.

Catholics teach that they're the whole church, not half of it, and the Orthodox teach the same. So either the Catholics have to become Orthodox or the Orthodox have to become Catholic, there's no ecumenist third option where we were actually both right the whole time.

So I understand a Catholic being against Jay because they think he's wrong. Obviously you think he's wrong if you're Catholic. But being against him for sowing disunity makes no sense to me. Catholics proselytize Orthodox don't they?
 

SilentCal

Robin
Well he's an Orthodox apologist so yeah, I'd say you're on to something here.



What does this really mean in practice though? There are serious doctrinal differences between Catholics and Orthodox, contradictions that can't just be handwaved away.

Catholics teach that they're the whole church, not half of it, and the Orthodox teach the same. So either the Catholics have to become Orthodox or the Orthodox have to become Catholic, there's no ecumenist third option where we were actually both right the whole time.

So I understand a Catholic being against Jay because they think he's wrong. Obviously you think he's wrong if you're Catholic. But being against him for sowing disunity makes no sense to me. Catholics proselytize Orthodox don't they?
Actually Catholics think the Orthodox are members of the Church by virtue of baptism, apostolic succession, and the Eucharist. They are separated from us in some ways, unified in others. In fact, Orthodox are permitted to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic church in some circumstances, and Catholics can receive in an Orthodox liturgy in some circumstances (according to the Catholic Church, anyway).

Edit (CIC 884):


Ҥ2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-

Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.”
 
Last edited:

Pioneer

Sparrow
Actually Catholics think the Orthodox are members of the Church by virtue of baptism, apostolic succession, and the Eucharist. They are separated from us in some ways, unified in others. In fact, Orthodox are permitted to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic church in some circumstances, and Catholics can receive in an Orthodox liturgy in some circumstances (according to the Catholic Church, anyway).

Edit (CIC 884):
No we don’t. This is fake Vatican II ecclesiology, has nothing to do with Catholicism.
 

jeffinjapan

Sparrow
Orthodox
He’s obviously very knowledgeable and has brought lots of people into the Orthodox Church which is good. But he uses too much profanity for my taste. If you’re going to be the face of online Orthodox apologetics and polemics, then stop it with the profanity...especially the F-bombs.
 

El Draque

Kingfisher
Orthodox
So Jay may be connected in two degrees of separation from freemasonry? Whoa, who would have thought a guy who wrote "Esoteric Hollywood" would do such a thing? Heard that Jesus guy was hanging around a bunch of sinners too - prostitutes, tax collectors and such.

Are you aware of Shaun Attwood and his beyond grubby lifestyle?

He's been exposed as a homosexual with a proclivity for 'butt plugs', a con man (cooking up fabricated 'my horrorific abuse' stories with a female escort coke head, in order to defraud gofundmes. Had aforementioned female escort dress up as a child and mock felate him, this is AFTER she did numerous 'my tell all horror of my child abuse' on his channel.

Never mind the fact he was a large scale drug dealer, and likely prison informer (got out of a 25 year stretch after 6). He buys likes and subscribers, has been banned from schools, having done numerous speeches in them. Shows an almost sexual delight in hearing his guests recount tales of extreme violence and torture. Numerous peope have remarked he has genuinely shockingly bad personal hygiene, the escort in question spoke of 'having to tell him to shower and specifically wash his backside', such was the smell emanating from it.

I was very surprised Jay Dyer would have anything to do with him.
 

OrthoLeaf

Sparrow
Orthodox
Unfortunately a lot of heated discussions are coming from the sede corner of RVF. Much of the recent moderation has had to deal with them and their sensitivities. The forum has place for traditional Catholics but I don't think we'll be able to handle a schismatic Catholic group that is aggressively at odds with everyone else. I advise the sedes to create their own private Telegram group or the like to vent some of the steam they are releasing here.
The sedes remind me of the "true Orthodox" schismatics. The same spirit of pride and divisiveness rules over both sects, which is why neither sect has produced a single saint in their entire existence. This alone, in my opinion, is a damning indication that they are not the authentic Christian Church. It's sad really, because many of their objections are valid but their "solution" of breaking away from the body of Christ has never been the way of the saints of the Church. We can look to St Mark of Ephesus as a textbook example of saintly reconciliation versus sectarian division and excommunication. The OT as well is littered with Prophets who held to the true faith while the secular and religious authorities apostatized - Elijah being the perfect example of this. He lamented over being the only Israelite left that held to the true faith, but never once created his own temple.

If the sedes and "true" Orthodox want us to believe their obscure sects are the true Church, while the entire "world Orthodoxy" or Catholic Church have fallen into apostasy, fine. I can accept that in the end times there will be mass apostasy. I can also accept that there are wolves in sheeps clothing in high places. But what I cannot accept is that the entire body of Christ will fall into apostasy and Christ would not appoint us a saint like Elijah or John the Baptist to point the faithful to Christ. He has done this all throughout the history of His Church, but the greatest and final apostasy He appoints none? Nonsense. Utter nonsense. In times of apostasy, we look to the saints. They are our check against the blind following of a corrupt hierarchy or the falling into the delusions of prideful sectarians.

Look to the Church that is producing saints in every generation and there one will find the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is only one Church that has maintained this standard and I will let others work that one out for themselves.
 
A secular judge ruled that they are indeed Monks in a court case.
The Church of Scientology will also list all the court cases they've won to support their claims that they're a religion (In direct conflict with the fact that only God can found a religion, not a crackpot sci-fi writer).

They are more like monks than I am, I'll concede.

I think the Dimond Brothers make some interesting points in their videos, and I'll leave it at that, I'm not qualified enough to pass any judgement(s).


Btw Jay will debate a Muslim scholar this weekend.

Hope Jay is prepared for it, the Youtube channel Acts 17 Apologetics would be the place I'd direct someone to study islam.

It's really easy to debate about islam and muhammed and win in a massive blow-out: Stick like glue to the facts of muhammed, his life and teachings, and the false religion of islam comes out looking like the demonic-mess that it is.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
We can look to St Mark of Ephesus as a textbook example of saintly reconciliation

? We seem to be getting our history from different sources. The story I got from my Catholic sources was that Mark of Ephesus consistently and always opposed reconciliation with the Western Church - to his death-bed.
Whether you consider that a good or a bad stand, a good or a bad choice, you can hardly call it an example of reconciliation.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
Are we seriously looking to Godless secular authorities to confirm who is and is not a monastic now? Is there any historical precedent for this in the 2000 years of history of the Christian Church?

+JMJ

There is no historical precedent in 2000 years, but perhaps I am unaware of something. Church Authority is all that matters. There is no seperation of Church and State in RCC dogma.

At the same time, I don't think the ROCOR would consider a Roman Catholic Benedictine monk a true Monk, I would guess no but am not sure. So it is difficult to have these discussions as we do not share ecclesiastic authority. This was my point in the charge that they are "liars", well they believe what they believe. I suppose the Charge could be placed also onto Coptics, that they do not have monks. I really am unsure of details of the EO doctrine, but at the same time EO posters aren't necessarily educated on how the RCC functions.

The details of the ruling are clear, it is a doctrinal issue, so in the end the Judge removes herself. So it is strange to hear EO posters call them liars in saying they are not monks based on tonsure or doctrinal issues, when all Roman Catholic Benedictine Monks are considered anathema to these same posters and perhaps not considered monks. The logic is perplexing to me. Are they posting from the EO position, or putting themselves into the RCC position through imagination or putting themselves in Roman Catholic Shoes, which is not possible.
 

Pioneer

Sparrow
+Ad majorem Dei Gloriam

We should be clear on the principles in church law that apply to founding an institution like “Most Holy Family Monastery” in the post-Vatican II era.

Lacking ordinary jurisdiction (the hierarchical ruling power that a diocesan bishop would have, for instance), no traditional priest or bishop has the power to establish a legally constituted religious order or religious congregation. A traditional priest or sister can only establish an organization of persons who imitate the rules of traditional orders and congregations.

In organizations like MHFM, the vows that the Dimond brothers take have no public canonical status in church law. Instead, lacking this public status, their vows are called “private” vows, even if a member pronounces them before a thousand people. They have the same status as a vow you or I might make to, say, give up coffee or pizza — and just like a no-pizza vow, a vow in the Most Holy Family Monastery or any organization like it can be dispensed by any confessor for a sufficient reason.

Love them or hate them, the Dimonds’ videos on Orthodoxy are always very good and I've yet to see anyone from the Eastern Orthodox side refute any of their points at all. Their videos are especially vital at a time when we see a lot of Trad Catholics fleeing for the false life-boat of Orthodoxy. They address the issues pertinent to some of today's challenges that the crisis in the Church has presented such as the EO option.

The Essence/Energies issue is a hot button topic in a lot of circles which are comprised of ex trad Catholics. The SSPX, CMRI, SSPV or any Traditional Catholic group have failed to address this highly esoteric topic. They should, because it's a real danger.

Their video “Jay Dyer Exposed & Palamism Refuted” is full of much needed wisdom on the topic of divine simplicity and Palamism. As for Jay Dyer himself, it is patently obvious that he is of bad will and has nothing but hatred for Our Lord. His endorsement of sin and his theological contradictions show him to be a false teacher and a possession of the devil. Anyone who honestly studies MHFM’s material on Eastern Orthodoxy cannot deny Jay Dyer’s various heresies and misrepresentations of Catholicism.

The MauricePinay and HereIsJorge Twitter feeds provide extensive coverage of Jay Dyer’s sketchy connections:
https://twitter.com/MauricePinay
https://twitter.com/HereIsJorge

Both Catholic sources are deep and impeccable in their coverage of Judaism. I assume their coverage of Jay Dyer and Orthodoxy is equally deep and impeccable.
 
We can use the video and what information it has to offer. Lets be real for a moment, Dyer exhibits a lot of Pride. With this Pride he exhibits being rude and insulting to people who are of certain age, particuraly 'boomers'. Therefore getting others to commit the same insults because they are cult like members to Dyer.

This is odd behavior for any Christian who is following Jesus to behave and do. These are things that can't be ignored.

Along with being OK taking a picture in front of an upside down cross with an Wiccan... is not what a TRUE follower of Christ would do.

I think there are too many people who are willing to defend his blatant ongoing sins only because he is really smart and good at debating non Orthodox. Other than that, the fruits that come out of his mouth can be very vile.
 

OrthoLeaf

Sparrow
Orthodox
? We seem to be getting our history from different sources. The story I got from my Catholic sources was that Mark of Ephesus consistently and always opposed reconciliation with the Western Church - to his death-bed.
Whether you consider that a good or a bad stand, a good or a bad choice, you can hardly call it an example of reconciliation.
Correct. But I was not referring to St Marks stance on the Catholic v Orthodox Church, which had been in schism for nearly 400 years by that point and he famously and correctly held that unification between the two is impossible without unity of faith.

I was referring to the events that took place in Constantinople and throughout Byzantium after the council. There were extraordinary tensions between the official hierarchy and secular authorities, under the watchful eye of papal ambassadors, and 100s of clergy, nearly all the monastics and a majority of the laity who supported St Mark. There are contemporary authors who speak of parishes in support of the uniates being empty, while those in support of St Mark being overflowing. Despite his popularity and despite his being the correct position, he never once sought to create a "true" Orthodox Church outside that of the official canonical Church. This was my point. In the midst of a tragic apostasy from both religious and secular authorities, with all the support of the faithful on his side and blatant persecutions against him, he never once advocated for breaking away from the Church, but instead called the hierarchy and secular authorities to repentance, called them to return to the Orthodox faith and to hold steadfast to the ancient faith- even at the cost of his own liberty and health. That is how saints act. They accept martyrdom from within the Church, they do not schism and set themselves in opposition to Her.

But this has gotten away from the original topic of this thread and would best be had in the Sede Vacantist thread, so I'll let this end here.
 
Top