This is silly. Recognizing obvious boasting and pride does not equal being a heretic.
Go through his videos and notice how he divides others by age and prides himself in knowing so much. How can truth be in blatant sins?
Jay Dyer
- Thread starter El Draque
- Start date
Go through his videos and notice how he divides others by age and prides himself in knowing so much. How can truth be in blatant sins?
You're overblowing this. It's just jokes. He has shown he has no problem ridiculing himself. And yes, he knows much.
Why is it difficult to hear someone say this about themselves?
I was expecting a response of 'he is just joking, no big deal. Now move along'
Taking pics in front of an upside down cross is no joke, nor is being prideful and insulting people based on their age. Bad fruit.
He is not prideful. And heretics need to be insulted. Especially boomer heretics. It's funny and true at the same time.
About the pic, when did it happen?
But these people he is calling boomers and insulting aren't doing anything related to Christianity. Its just daily society functions. Insulting people based on their age because they don't understand crypto isn't them being a Heretics.
He took the picture in 2019... when he was Orthodox. You should watch the video that was posted on the thread.
I'll pray that your eyes will be opened to the sins this man is filled with.
I agree, Dyer is too prideful. His other downside, which is related, is that he is too eager to associate himself with popular figures and channels in order to market his brand, people like that Shaun Attwood figure, and that in an effort to keep his brand up he steers away from key subjects. He is a bit of a careerist who lacks courage, something that Owen Benjamin for instance isn't.
I've followed JD much earlier than most of you, as I've had similar interests in the deep state and popular media, back when he was a regular on the Boiler Room, and have seen his progress. He doesn't participate in the Boiler Room anywhere, you get the feeling that he's become too big for his britches.
Dyer is basically a guy from middle America who migrated to SoCal and is enamored with that culture, hence his interest in Hollywood, penchant for comedy and his channel's aesthetic. He does lack the religious grounding of someone who was steeped in Christian tradition from his childhood, raised in a millenium-old Christian tradition. In many ways, someone who comes from a traditional Christian background in say rural Greece who has never read any treaties on theology will have a deeper link with Christianity than a convert who spent his adult life in LA steeped in Hollywood culture.
There is definitely a certain level of vanity and pride in his theological approach, and his tendency to rail on the Catholic Church.
This being said, I still like JD, he's done some good work and when you weigh the negative column with the positive I still think of him as a fundamentally good guy overall, warts and all. People on here have a tendency to be too binary in their judgment of others. I just wish he would gain some maturity and wisdom, like nearly all of us he has some flaws to work on.
I've followed JD much earlier than most of you, as I've had similar interests in the deep state and popular media, back when he was a regular on the Boiler Room, and have seen his progress. He doesn't participate in the Boiler Room anywhere, you get the feeling that he's become too big for his britches.
Dyer is basically a guy from middle America who migrated to SoCal and is enamored with that culture, hence his interest in Hollywood, penchant for comedy and his channel's aesthetic. He does lack the religious grounding of someone who was steeped in Christian tradition from his childhood, raised in a millenium-old Christian tradition. In many ways, someone who comes from a traditional Christian background in say rural Greece who has never read any treaties on theology will have a deeper link with Christianity than a convert who spent his adult life in LA steeped in Hollywood culture.
There is definitely a certain level of vanity and pride in his theological approach, and his tendency to rail on the Catholic Church.
This being said, I still like JD, he's done some good work and when you weigh the negative column with the positive I still think of him as a fundamentally good guy overall, warts and all. People on here have a tendency to be too binary in their judgment of others. I just wish he would gain some maturity and wisdom, like nearly all of us he has some flaws to work on.
Last edited:
Boomer isn't an age, it's a mindset. A spiritual delusion. We must crucify the boomer within us through metanoia and praxis if we wish to enter the kingdom of heaven.
This prayer is remarkably similar to the prayer of the pharisee. You should pray that your own eyes will be open to the sins you are filled with. As we all should.
Jay has admitted he struggles with pride. I find it remarkable how so many Catholics attack him for his passion, yet remain utterly uncharitable in regards to the struggles of a fellow Christian. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? (Matthew 7:5) It's also worth noting that Jay has noticeably improved in this regard over the past year. It seems that marriage has been a beneficial change for him. I don't expect Catholics, who likely don't follow him at all, to recognize the progress he has made against his passion but praise for a man making noticeable progress in overcoming his sin should be in order after years of steady vitriol thrown at him. Yet I doubt, ironically enough, that there are many who will be humble enough appreciate this fact. Any Christian who takes his faith seriously knows how bloody hard it is to overcome our passions, so some patience and appreciation of how hard this task is, before we condemn our brothers in Christ would be a welcome change - and this goes for all of us, btw.
All that said, I do have to question how much it is the pride that Catholics hate about Jay, versus the apologetics that he presents. It's easy to attack the man, difficult to attack his arguments given how deep he was into Catholicism before his conversion to Orthodoxy. He knows the Catholic faith better than most Catholics do and I think even most Catholics would have to agree with that statement. If Jay, through the grace of God, is able to continue in his overcoming of his passion, what will Catholics do then? Will they finally begin to address his arguments? Because if they fail to, Jay will continue to convert even more Catholics to Orthodoxy, at an even faster rate then he currently is.
Thanks for the clarification.
All things take time as the Life of St Maximus can attest to. I attend one of these churches that split from ROCOR when ROCOR decided to unite with the ROC, I can't say I'm a true Christian, if my behaviour is an indicator. But I will say, if your examples ring true today, then you must condemn ROCOR for splitting away from the ROC, and creating their own separate institution. St Mark of Ephesus held to what is true, which is why we hold to the Old Calendar, and avoid Ecumenism. I'm not too knowledgeable on modern saints, but the closest man that may fit your criteria is St Ieronymos of Aegina, who could provide a lesson for all. From his life:
It is easier to see a man's sins than his repentance.
You're trying to convince a first-time poster (Sasquatch...) on RooshV Forum who has exclusively come to life TODAY to judge Jay Dyer. It's absolutely ludicrous. Zero credibility.
Thank you. This is basically what I wanted to say, but didn't really have the level of concern to write it all out.
I've known of Jay since 2016 when I happened upon his esoteric Hollywood videos. Though I was never a big fan, I've been enriched by some of his content. I've taken a step back from YouTube over the last 2 years, went from consuming upwards of 6 hours a day to maybe 1-2 daily if not less now. Naturally some people I follow had to get cut and Jay was one of those. If I was going to recommend people to those with a fledgling interest in Orthodoxy, Jay would not be the first on my list, but I wouldn't rule him out on some issues or for more advanced seekers looking for specialized content.
This has nothing to with Catholic vs Orthodox. This is solely based on him as a person who is a follower of Christ and how he treats people of different ages, how he has taken pictures in front of an upside down cross, and the amount of pride he holds.
WARNING LONG POST AHEAD:
You would be correct and this is why this requires discernment and not universal categorical statements. I suppose I should have been more clear so I'll apologize for any confusion, although I did mention that the saints are who shows us the way. The catacomb Church, from which ROCOR originates from has produced many saints over the past 100 years. Yet I can't think of a single saint from within the ROC during that period, yet there are dozens from the catacombs and the exiled Church (ROCOR). I suppose one could consider St Tikhon, who would eventually start to capitulate to the atheist authorities at the end of his life, although that is another long story and for the sake of brevity, it's debatable if he even capitulated, or if the authorities simply signed his name to statements he never agreed to, but I digress. The following brief overview of the fascinating and tragic history of ROCOR should demonstrate that the spirit governing ROCOR is not the same schismatic spirit that governs the true orthodox sects.
In 1917 the Russian Local Council of the ROC got together and appointed St Tikhon to the Patriarchate - the first Patriarch since Peter the Great. In 1920 Patriarch Tikhon actually granted autonomy to what would eventually become the OCA and ROCOR, until such time that reunification and communication with the hierarchy proper could be re-established. This is where ROCOR actually begins. Not out of schism, but by actually following the decrees of Patriarch Tikhon. Now, to be fair to your position, they did rescind this decree a few years later after serious "pressure" (wholesale massacre and imprisonment) which was ignored by these autonomous groups. The question then becomes - do we accept the capitulation position from Tikhon (presumably), or his initial decree of "until such communication can be re-established"? The events get even stickier, as we continue forward in this story. The success of the Red Army coincided with mass emigration of over 2 million Russian Christians into Greece, which included 100s of bishops and countless clergy. The Ecumenical Patriarch granted this group religious autonomy, which included territory currently held by the hostage Moscow patriarchate. These exiles would continue their emigration into western Europe after WW1 due to the upheaval caused by the collapse of the Ottoman empire and the continued massacres in Russia, when they were invited by the Patriarchate of Serbia where they were once again granted full autonomy over the emigrants. (As a side note, we can see the providence of God here, as it was through this upheaval that the monastic tradition in Serbia was revived.) The leader throughout this whole emigration was a man by the name of Metropolitan Anthony, who actually received more votes than Tikhon for the election of Patriarch, but would choose to draw straws between the three finalists instead, which lead to the appointment of Tikhon. As we can see it was Gods providence who chose this great man to be the spiritual leader of the diaspora protecting and guiding them through more upheavals and calamities than we can even imagine - more of a Moses figure than a schismatic.
Upon Tikhons death, the following two patriarchs were both on the list provided by Tikhon as his rightful successors and were both accepted by ROCOR and were commemorated as such in the Liturgy. This is a good point to mention that throughout this entire time, ROCOR never once considered itself a schismatic Church, unlike the true Orthodoxy sects, but instead considered itself the "Free part of the ROC". There were no claims of invalid sacraments, or graceless institutions etc. Yes, ROC considered them schismatics, but from the ROCOR perspective that was due solely to secular pressure. Then along comes Metropolitan Sergius, who wrongfully defraucts Patriarch Cyril and forces all Churches to commemorate him as patriarch. This goes outside of the wishes of Tikhon and was rightfully condemned by ROCOR. Moving ahead in the story, it wouldn't be until 1945 that Metropolitan Anastasy (successor to Anthony) who out of his pastoral duties to over 2 million souls and over 1000 parishes explicitly rejected submission to what he saw as the hostage ROC which was openly calling our Christian martyrs "enemies of the state". Even here however, they did not see themselves as schismatics, but as the free Church simply waiting for the liberation of the ROC before unification. For the sake of brevity I'll cut off the history lesson here as the most traumatic upheavals took place from 1920-1945 and the following decades would be more of sitting and waiting for the godless regimes to collapse, while attempting to govern a large diaspora now located all across the globe. I will simply remark that after the fall of the Soviet Union, ROCOR and ROC went back into dialogue and through the grace of God were able to obtain unification again in 2007.
Make of that all too brief history lesson what you will, but I would argue that it was a unique and frankly bizarre set of events that lead to the "schism" and it would be disingenuous to imply that the spirit that founded ROCOR, which I see as something more along the lines of an exiled people trying their best to preserve their faith and heritage is anything like the "true" Orthodox sects, which is one of pride and division. This is not to say that I don't recognize their arguments and even sympathize with them, just that to excommunicate yourself from the Church instead of waiting for the inevitable events to ensue is the wrong choice imo. ROCOR is still on the Old Calendar as is nearly every monastery around the world, and rightfully so imo, as the new calendar is actually a part of the ecumenist agenda and was not universally accepted by the rest of the Church. However, I would strongly recommend you to join a ROCOR parish as a calendar is not a sufficient reason to schism from the body of Christ.
From what I could gleam from reading up on Elder Ieronymos, I see no reason to believe that he wasn't a genuine holy man who simply rejected the ecumenism and political infighting of his time and fled to the mountain tops to go live as a hermit. If it wasn't for the ecumenism within the Ecumenical Patriarchate he could have very well been glorified as well. He is commemorated as a holy man by some monks on Mt Athos and that is enough for me. He seems to have been chosen by one of the greek sects to be "their guy" and I would tend to push back against them using a holy man to push their own sectarian movement, given that Elder Ieronymos, to my knowledge, never advised anyone to join one of the schismatic sect, nor played a role in any of their machinations. Did he even consider himself apart of their schism? I found no evidence of such. He simply rejected the new calendar and went to live as a hermit, submitting himself to Christ wanting nothing to do with the factions that began to appear on both sides. This is precisely what your quote states as well. It does not appear to be accurate to claim him as a saint of the true Orthodox sect, as much as it would be to say that he was sympathetic, as are many, and wary of the rise of ecumenism, as are many; and that the schismatics simply used him to reinforce their own schism decades after the fact. So I would hold to my statement that no saint has been produced by the sectarian groups, if the best they could do is point to a sympathetic hermit who wanted nothing to do with them or the Patriarchate. His words are basically no different then that of many saints in the canonical Churches.
I stand by my claim that Orthodox sectarians have never produced a single saint, while ROCOR has. Nor do they look towards re-unification, which ROCOR did. It is birthed out of division and seeks to remain as such. Even today, when excommunication with the Ecumenical Patriarchate now looms I have yet to see a "true" Orthodox sect that seeks to reunify with Moscow or any other Patriarchate. It's all just "well it didn't happen fast enough" - which ignores the historical track record of the Church as, for example, the Filioque controversy began in the 9th century, but there would be no excommunication until the 11th. 200 years! 600 years, if we want to consider the Council of Florence as the final nail in the coffin for that tragic event in Church history. Yet the true Orthodox have been clamoring for the division within the Church since 1935 - a mere 5 years after the ecumenical push to impose the new calendar. When the rest of the Church rightfully rolled their eyes at these schismatics for demanding what has historically taken centuries, to be done in a mere 5 years they had the audacity to claim they're all corrupt heretics and denied the grace of the entirety of "world Orthodox". Which is why to this day they are forced to deny the sanctity of St. Paisios, St porphyrios, St Joseph the Hesychast, St John of Shanghai, St Hilarion etc.
TL;DR - ROCOR was a exiled nation, not a schismatic sect and Elder Ieronymos was a blessed hermit who wanted nothing to do with the Patriarchate or the schismatics.
Not so! The Catholic Church teaches that she alone is the unique Church of Christ, and that all other religions, whether Christian or non-Christian, are sects. They are false religions. St. Cyprian said, "There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made except the one altar and the one priesthood. Whosoever gathereth elsewhere, scattereth.”
The Church teaches that those people are members of the Catholic Church who have been validly baptized, and who have not been excluded from the Catholic Church by means of heresy, schism, or excommunication. Pope Pius XII teaches in his encyclical “Mystici Corporis”:
"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. 'For in one spirit' says the Apostle, 'were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.' As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit."
In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, which is the one, true Church, there are only the following categories of people:
1) Catholics, i.e., those who are members of the Roman Catholic Church;
2) heretics, that is, validly baptized people who have left the Church because they adhere publicly to false teachings and/or non-Catholic sects;
3) schismatics, that is, validly baptized people who have left the Church because they refuse to recognize the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, or belong to sects which profess the same;
4) excommunicates, those who have been ejected from the Church by declaratory sentence of excommunication;
5) infidels, that is, the unbaptized, who fall into two subcategories: (a) Jews, whose error of resistance to the true Messias has a special name, that of perfidy, and (b) heathens, i.e. pagans, idolaters, and people who have no religion at all.
There is no such thing as a "partial communion" between the Roman Catholic Church and non-Catholic sects. To assert that there is a partial communion between the Roman Catholic Church and non-Catholic sects is overtly heretical, since it is directly contrary to the Church's teaching:
Pope Pius IX: "None [of these religious societies differing among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church], not even taken as a whole, constitutes in any way and are not that one, Catholic Church founded and made by Our Lord and which He wished to create. Further, one cannot say in any way that these societies are either members or parts of that same Church, because they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity."
Pope Leo XIII: "Jesus Christ never conceived of nor instituted a Church formed of many communities which were brought together by certain general traits - but which would be distinct one from another and not bound together among themselves by ties which make the Church one and indivisible - since we clearly profess in the Creed of our Faith: " 'I believe in one...Church.'”
Pope Pius XI: "It is absurd and ridiculous to say that the Mystical Body can be formed out of separated and disjunct members."
Pope Pius XI: "It is to depart from divine truth to imagine a Church which one can neither see nor touch, which would be nothing more than spiritual in which numerous Christian communities would be united by an invisible bond,even though they are divided in faith."
It is important to understand this Vatican II ecclesiological heresy (Church heresy), for it is the basis of its heresy concerning religious liberty. Critiques of Vatican II tend to center on the religious liberty heresy, but it is merely an outflow of the ecclesiological heresy, which is more grave as it is more fundamental.
St. Augustine said:
“We believe in the Holy Church which is indeed Catholic. For the heretics and schismatics also call their congregations Churches. But the heretics violate the faith by thinking falsely, and the schismatics break away from fraternal charity by their wicked dissensions, although they believe what we believe. For this reason neither the heretics belong to the Catholic Church, which loves God, nor the schismatics, because the Church loves her neighbor.”
I agree with some of what you said and disagree with some. Of course non-Catholic Christians are not in the Catholic Church, and in that sense they’re not in the Church. But they are united with us in some ways (not fully), especially by baptism, and in the case of the Orthodox, apostolic succession and the Eucharist.
You’re not saying the Orthodox sacraments are false are you? Because that’s definitely not what the Catholic Church teaches.
Edit: I just realized you are a brand new sede and this is your first post. This is a consistent pattern at this point. Do you mind telling everyone where you’re all coming from?
The only true Christians are Catholics.
This sounds shocking in our age of Ecumenism, but its the teaching of the Church.
Pope Pius IX, Singulari quidem, March 17, 1856:
“The only Christian is one who accepts Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church he established.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896:
“Who can have God for Father and not accept the Church for Mother? Who can accept the spouse Christ, and not his mystical bride the Church? Who can separate the Head, the only begotten Son of God, from the body, which is His Church? It is not possible.”
Pope Pius XII; Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957:
“To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth.”
“Sacraments”, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913):St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologicae iii.82, Article 7: “Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?”:
St Augustine (died AD 533):
“No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)
I dont really care for Jay. I am sure I have said such on the forum. He comes of a little bit pompous to me, but.... then again, if you met me you'd say worse about my demeanor and nature. I think he is well read, though that doesnt mean much to me. In the age of youtube and social media, I prefer to get the theology directly from the priests.
That being said, I think he means well and is genuine. Its been a couple years since I've seen anything from him other than his interview with Roosh, which i thought was fine, and made me think he might have matured from my impression of earlier commentary.
I didnt care for the review of Dugin at the time, but i might have a different understanding now if I watched it again. I may be harsh in judging his take.
I sense a lot of insecurity on the thread from Catholics. I dont uderstand where it comes from. We all believe our faiths to be the TRUE faith... otherwise we would convert.
I can value EMJ for his prolific works and still think he is wrong about certain theological debates and yet 100% appreciate his solid input. I dont agree on everything he says either about social commentary or government or theology, and I certainly don't like some of the podcast hosts/shows he does.... that does... doesnt mean i cant see the value in the input, even when it contradicts my own view....
That being said, I think he means well and is genuine. Its been a couple years since I've seen anything from him other than his interview with Roosh, which i thought was fine, and made me think he might have matured from my impression of earlier commentary.
I didnt care for the review of Dugin at the time, but i might have a different understanding now if I watched it again. I may be harsh in judging his take.
I sense a lot of insecurity on the thread from Catholics. I dont uderstand where it comes from. We all believe our faiths to be the TRUE faith... otherwise we would convert.
I can value EMJ for his prolific works and still think he is wrong about certain theological debates and yet 100% appreciate his solid input. I dont agree on everything he says either about social commentary or government or theology, and I certainly don't like some of the podcast hosts/shows he does.... that does... doesnt mean i cant see the value in the input, even when it contradicts my own view....
Not only was this written by a man who lived before the Great Schism - and who later in life changed his mind about the person of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is founded - but the existence of the Uniates proves that the "Roman Catholic Church" does not even really believe in its own ecclesiology. They are in full communion with people who venerate St. Gregory Palamas as a Saint (as they should), so it seems they will be in communion with anyone who professes submission to the Pope even if that person believes in things that they aren't "supposed to."