Jay Dyer

Angelus

Chicken
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
And?
- 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."
Only since Vatican II, which is my point. Vatican II taught a false New Ecclesiology that is completely at odds with the traditional Catholic teaching. Veneration of Gregory Palamas as a “saint” was forbidden before Vatican II, by the way.
 
Last edited:

iop890

Peacock
Gold Member
Is some sedevacantist forum or discord linking people here or what? We've always had a few but over the last three or four weeks we've all of a sudden had a dozen or more very vocal sedes show up. It seems like the Catholic part of the forum is mostly sedes now.

They don't bother me as much as they bother most of the others but it's obviously not all organic so I'm curious.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Is some sedevacantist forum or discord linking people here or what? We've always had a few but over the last three or four weeks we've all of a sudden had a dozen or more very vocal sedes show up. It seems like the Catholic part of the forum is mostly sedes now.

They don't bother me as much as they bother most of the others but it's obviously not all organic so I'm curious.


Today's powers that be show little interest in sedevacantism, so I don't think there's anything big involved.
Perhaps it's just one or a few users having multiple accounts.
Also, on the Internet there are a lot of people hopping from one conviction to another. I wouldn't be surprised if some members here who are sedes today will become Hindus next week and Zoroastrians the week after that.
What matters to judge forum contributors is not so much whether they are "vocal" as whether they last.
 

iop890

Peacock
Gold Member
Today's powers that be show little interest in sedevacantism, so I don't think there's anything big involved.

I was thinking more along the lines of RVF getting linked/mentioned on some big Sedevacantist site or something. I agree it's unlikely to be any kind of serious astroturfing.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of RVF getting linked/mentioned on some big Sedevacantist site or something. I agree it's unlikely to be any kind of serious astroturfing.
Yes, you could be right. I think it might just be a few guys creating new accounts over and over again. The Catholic subforum has been absolutely nuked by this. Thanks, Sedes. They are as toxic as some Orthobros on the internet.
 

SilentCal

Robin
The only true Christians are Catholics.
This sounds shocking in our age of Ecumenism, but its the teaching of the Church.
"For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." - Unitatis redintegratio 3

(Full disclosure - This is from a Vatican II document rejected by sedes.)
 

OrthoLeaf

Sparrow
Orthodox
Jay Dyer has so far not been mentioned on this page
I'll try and merge the two topics here. This is an excellent article from Jay that deals with 5 objections to the Papacy. Genuinely interested in seeing what rebuttals Catholics in this thread will present.

As a side note, one of my favorite quotes from the Pope is this:

“Here we are not in the presence of any kind of contradiction with the teaching of the past, because the defense of the dignity of human life from the first moment of conception until natural death has always found its coherent and authoritative voice in the teaching of the Church. The harmonious development of doctrine, however, requires us to cease defending arguments which now appear decisively contrary to the new understanding of Christian truth”.

>No contradiction to our past teachings
>Doctrine has developed so accept our new teachings
lol what!?
 

scorpion

Hummingbird
Gold Member
This pearl clutching about Jay Dyer being a poor witness for Christ because he is boastful or associating with the wrong people is laughable. As if God cannot accomplish his work through the use of sinful men? You do realize that is the entire history of the Christian church, right? You do realize that the original disciples once sat around arguing and boasting about which of them would be the greatest in heaven, right? (Luke 9:46) You do realize that you are posting on the website of a man who rose to prominence for his strong and unapologetic advocacy of sinful behavior, but who has now become a witness to the glory of God? Every good work performed by Christians in the name of Christ is work perform by sinners, because we remain imperfect and sinful even after coming to Christ.

I don't see anyone in this thread claiming that Jay Dyer is a perfect Christian without sin or blemish. But it's inarguable that his work has had a tremendous missionary effect in bringing the message of Christ to thousands of people who otherwise would not have been exposed to it. Therefore to sit back and cast aspersions at him (while you do what, exactly, to help grow the Kingdom of God?) is extremely unbecoming behavior for a Christian. Jay Dyer was gifted with a strong mind and an ability and willingness to communicate. He is using those gifts in service of God and his work has clearly born fruit. There is really nothing else to be said. He is essentially functioning as a missionary on YouTube. Leave him to perform his ministry and go find your own personal ministry using the gifts that God has given you.
 

SilentCal

Robin
Therefore to sit back and cast aspersions at him (while you do what, exactly, to help grow the Kingdom of God?) is extremely unbecoming behavior for a Christian.
So is it also extremely unbecoming behavior for Jay Dyer to cast aspersions at the pope, Thomas Aquinas, and at Catholics in general? We are the largest Christian group on earth, you know.
 
Last edited:

Angelus

Chicken
As a side note, one of my favorite quotes from the Pope is this:

“Here we are not in the presence of any kind of contradiction with the teaching of the past, because the defense of the dignity of human life from the first moment of conception until natural death has always found its coherent and authoritative voice in the teaching of the Church. The harmonious development of doctrine, however, requires us to cease defending arguments which now appear decisively contrary to the new understanding of Christian truth”.

>No contradiction to our past teachings
>Doctrine has developed so accept our new teachings
lol what!?
@OrthoLeaf
Please have a look at the two following articles if you get a chance:
-The “God of Surprises” and his Oracle: Francis and the Development of Doctrine

-Modernist Francis: Truth is NOT a “System of Doctrines and Dogmas”

Further info can be found here:
-What You Need to Know About the Man who Claims to be the Pope: The Facts About “Pope” Francis I (continuously updated)
 
Last edited:

scorpion

Hummingbird
Gold Member
So is it also extremely unbecoming behavior for Jay Dyer to cast aspersions at the pope, Thomas Aquinas, and at Catholics in general? We are the largest Christian group on earth, you know.
E. Michael Jones was mentioned earlier in the thread. He's a vocal Catholic who is very critical of Protestant Christianity and what he views as its disastrous effects on the Catholic Church. I am a Protestant, and yet I think highly of EMJ's work and have read a number of his books. I think he does great work and is performing the exact ministry to which he is suited and to which Christ has called him.

I view Jay Dyer in a similar light. I do not expect to agree with everything that comes out of his mouth, nor should you. If he is critical of certain elements of Catholicism, why does that bother you? Do you think Catholicism is beyond all reproach and perfect in every regard? Should no one be allowed to say anything negative about it? Are you, SilentCal, appointing yourself as some sort of internet guardian of the Catholic Church?

Get over yourself. The Catholic Church has been around for two thousand years and survived everything the Devil has thrown at it. Schism, Reformation and Vatican II (Sedes seething) have not brought it down. And according to the Catholic interpretation of Scripture, not even the gates of hell shall prevail against it. So a bit of criticism from Jay Dyer should be of little concern to any faithful Catholic.
 

Angelus

Chicken
E. Michael Jones was mentioned earlier in the thread. He's a vocal Catholic who is very critical of Protestant Christianity and what he views as its disastrous effects on the Catholic Church. I am a Protestant, and yet I think highly of EMJ's work and have read a number of his books. I think he does great work and is performing the exact ministry to which he is suited and to which Christ has called him.

I view Jay Dyer in a similar light. I do not expect to agree with everything that comes out of his mouth, nor should you. If he is critical of certain elements of Catholicism, why does that bother you? Do you think Catholicism is beyond all reproach and perfect in every regard? Should no one be allowed to say anything negative about it? Are you, SilentCal, appointing yourself as some sort of internet guardian of the Catholic Church?

Get over yourself. The Catholic Church has been around for two thousand years and survived everything the Devil has thrown at it. Schism, Reformation and Vatican II (Sedes seething) have not brought it down. And according to the Catholic interpretation of Scripture, not even the gates of hell shall prevail against it. So a bit of criticism from Jay Dyer should be of little concern to any faithful Catholic.
@scorpion The answer is simple. Even though the Church will never fail but endure until the end of time, nevertheless, persecution by her enemies causes immense harm to souls, and souls really do go to hell if they fall victim to it, even though the Church perdures. When the Faith is under attack, when souls are put in danger of hellfire, when heresy threatens to suffocate the innocent and pure Faith of her children, it will not do to simply point out that the Church cannot fail. She cannot fail, indeed, but the number of her members can shrink, that is, her children can fall away, abandon the Faith, become apathetic, sin mortally, starve spiritually from confusion and a lack of knowledge, and go to hell for all eternity. For the Kingdom of God on earth to lose members and have them transferred back to the kingdom of the devil is great cause for concern and anxiety. This is the very opposite of what the Church was commissioned to accomplish. The Holy Catholic Church was founded to lead souls to heaven, not to see them condemned to hell. It is for this reason that the retort of “But the gates of Hell won’t prevail” in the face of the persecution of the Church is completely misguided.
 

scorpion

Hummingbird
Gold Member
If you think that Jay Dyer's YouTube videos are tantamount to "persecution of the Catholic Church" you are hypersensitive, to say the least, and historically ignorant of the realities of what actual religious persecution looks like. Further, implying that Jay Dyer is some sort of pied piper leading people down the road to perdition is quite outrageous. You have people in this very thread talking about how his videos led them to faith in Christ and/or greatly strengthened their existing faith. The Catholic Church is in no danger from Jay Dyer, nor is anyone's immortal soul.
 

Blade Runner

Ostrich
Orthodox
If you think that Jay Dyer's YouTube videos are tantamount to "persecution of the Catholic Church" you are hypersensitive, to say the least, and historically ignorant of the realities of what actual religious persecution looks like. Further, implying that Jay Dyer is some sort of pied piper leading people down the road to perdition is quite outrageous. You have people in this very thread talking about how his videos led them to faith in Christ and/or greatly strengthened their existing faith. The Catholic Church is in no danger from Jay Dyer, nor is anyone's immortal soul.
The implication that people, who when put through a trial, do not come out as faithful or approved, should otherwise be spared, is actually heretical. We are coming on the times when even God himself has revealed to us that "the elect" may even be deceived. We don't live in a utopia without challenges is my point, and some people may stumble because that is the point of testing them, as St. Paul said when he referred to the factions among us, and that means the purpose would be to reveal the one true Church.

It is clear to me that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true church, but even stating such (a proof of my statement as well) there will likely be many of its members who are with God in the end.
 

OrthoLeaf

Sparrow
Orthodox
So in short, papal ecclesiology failed and the dogma has been repeatedly altered. However, I'm more interested in your response to the arguments presented in the article.
 

SilentCal

Robin
So a bit of criticism from Jay Dyer should be of little concern to any faithful Catholic.
Likewise, a bit of criticism of Jay Dyer from me should be of no concern to you. You have an obvious double standard. Jay Dyer can criticize with impunity, and I need to “get over myself.”

The point of this thread is to express thoughts about Jay Dyer, and that’s all I’m doing. You’re the one telling me what I’m allowed to say because you don’t like my opinion, not the other way round. Maybe you should get over yourself?
 
Last edited:

scorpion

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Likewise, a bit of criticism of Jay Dyer from me should be of no concern to you. You have an obvious double standard. Jay Dyer can criticize with impunity, and I need to “get over myself.”

The point of this thread is to express thoughts about Jay Dyer, and that’s all I’m doing. You’re the one telling me what I’m allowed to say because you don’t like my opinion, not the other way round. Maybe you should get over yourself?

Fair point. I just don't like to see Christians personally attacking fellow Christians, whereas I think some degree of institutional criticism can be healthy. This is why I don't think you should take Jay Dyer's criticism of the Catholic Church as some grave insult, just like I'm not highly rustled by EMJ's criticism of Protestant Christianity. At the end of the day every Christian is imperfect, and every Church could do things better. We're all seeing through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:12) and trying to apprehend eternal and infinite truth with limited human faculties, so we're bound to make mistakes. But a spirit of love, patience and forbearance should dominate our Christian fellowship.
 

Aloha50

Sparrow
Fair point. I just don't like to see Christians personally attacking fellow Christians, whereas I think some degree of institutional criticism can be healthy. This is why I don't think you should take Jay Dyer's criticism of the Catholic Church as some grave insult, just like I'm not highly rustled by EMJ's criticism of Protestant Christianity. At the end of the day every Christian is imperfect, and every Church could do things better. We're all seeing through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:12) and trying to apprehend eternal and infinite truth with limited human faculties, so we're bound to make mistakes. But a spirit of love, patience and forbearance should dominate our Christian fellowship.
Excellent
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Orthodox
You would be correct and this is why this requires discernment and not universal categorical statements.....

.................

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.

How is it that you can say in good conscience that we should use discernment and not universal categorical statements, then go back to using the same universal blanket statements against those you don't like? I'm not justifying every splinter group, or any at all. But as your post shows, situations are complicated, and it doesn't do justice to just claim "X".

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.

The purpose of my quoting St Ieronymos was not to justify one sect or another, but rather to say leave the splinter groups alone, if it's as you say, they'll have to answer to God about it. It's not like ROCOR re-entering communion with the ROC was a clean join, and if ROCOR didn't rejoin with the ROC, I'd be in a "canonical" church. If it's of such high importance, I'm sure Jesus Christ will draw me in to a "canonical" church at a later date. It makes little sense for a 2 year old convert attending services in Church Slavonic when I currently participate in several fully English services each week.

I was explicitly pointed to the Church that I attend by Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson, who was the conduit through which I came to Orthodoxy, and I'll remain until I have good reason to leave.
 
Top