Reliability of Jay Dyer

[Euodius]

You must be kidding me. Take a cursory glance at his output. And things like the "Orthodox Survival Course" are not well-regarded. "Jay Dyer is literally St John of Kronstadt" is not a line of inquiry I'm going to dignify.

"And things like the "Orthodox Survival Course" are not well-regarded." Why should that be? And why should an Orthodox Christian be concerned about being well-regarded? And well-regarded by whom? Chairman Mao?

""Jay Dyer is literally St John of Kronstadt" is not a line of inquiry"" - Yes, that is not a line of inquiry, so why do you imply that it is and engage in a misrepresentation (intentionally or not) of the statements that I have given? You must be kitten me right meow. Be real.

 

[Platina]

To say the Survival Course is not well-regarded is dishonest at best.

For one, it's too little known to even make a call, considering that it's never been published but only passed around online by people who are stealing from the monastery, although its inclusion in YouTube videos is spreading it farther.

And anyways, obviously there are many people who regard it very highly.

What you meant to say is that you personally don't care for it.

 

[gzt]

This is a fair response; I don't see how, for instance, anybody could read his take on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and not be embarrassed, but some people seem to overlook the shockingly bad historical knowledge displayed.

 

[Euodius]

This is a fair response; I don't see how, for instance, anybody could read his take on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and not be embarrassed, but some people seem to overlook the shockingly bad historical knowledge displayed.

His realistic take precludes the fact of that document's forgery. You are making the common mistake of refusing to see the forest, because not every tree has been defined, cataloged, and then systematized. You are missing the point of the entire section by reading a meta-historical text as an historical text - this is a historiographical error. The influence of the document The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on history and the meaning of that history is key. Thus, you forget the spiritual for the material, raising the material over the spiritual, in order to dismiss the spiritual. It's nominalism. This is why your critiques are only on the lowest level of discourse - you focus on minute details which are ultimately irrelevant to the corpus which you attempt to critique.

 

[Rusviking876]

The theology and worldview of the Russian Orthodox "Third Rome" is vital to Orthodoxy today, especially in rebuking Protestantism and the Western 'Enlightenment'. And, beyond that, read the Church Fathers. I'm currently reading Clement I of Rome.

Dyer is okay especially relative to other moderns, but beware the innovation of the moderns. The medieval and ancient world had all the answers.

 

[Not David]

The theology and worldview of the Russian Orthodox "Third Rome" is vital to Orthodoxy today, especially in rebuking Protestantism and the Western 'Enlightenment'. And, beyond that, read the Church Fathers. I'm currently reading Clement I of Rome.

Dyer is okay especially relative to other moderns, but beware the innovation of the moderns. The medieval and ancient world had all the answers.

I also thought Russia was great but I noticed they have a great number of abortions, AIDS and the importance of religion on people between 15 and 21 is just 6%. Plus, I read a tweet of Russia establishing a mosque on Crimea.

 

[Rusviking876]

I also thought Russia was great but I noticed they have a great number of abortions, AIDS and the importance of religion on people between 15 and 21 is just 6%. Plus, I read a tweet of Russia establishing a mosque on Crimea.

Pre-Revolutionary, Old Russia I mean when I say Orthodox Russia.

Today, Post-Revolutionary Russia is just recovering from over a century of disasters.
The Bolsheviks destroyed Old Russia and later the oligarchs stole everything that wasn't nailed down.
Russia in the 1990s was flooded with American pornography, abortion, drugs, criminal gangs. Putin and the Church have done a lot to reverse this though.

 

[Not David]

Pre-Revolutionary, Old Russia I mean when I say Orthodox Russia.

Today, Post-Revolutionary Russia is just recovering from over a century of disasters.
The Bolsheviks destroyed Old Russia and later the oligarchs stole everything that wasn't nailed down.
Russia in the 1990s was flooded with American pornography, abortion, drugs, criminal gangs. Putin and the Church have done a lot to reverse this though.

Let's hope Russia gets better.

 

[Euodius]

Pre-Revolutionary, Old Russia I mean when I say Orthodox Russia.

Today, Post-Revolutionary Russia is just recovering from over a century of disasters.
The Bolsheviks destroyed Old Russia and later the oligarchs stole everything that wasn't nailed down.
Russia in the 1990s was flooded with American pornography, abortion, drugs, criminal gangs. Putin and the Church have done a lot to reverse this though.

Pre-revolutionary Russia wasn't great either. From Peter the Great onward, the Energy/Essence distinction was almost entirely denied - it was a Church of Barlaamites. Even as late as 1913, books were in common publication that called hesychasm heresy. The elders of Optina were an exception - and that's part of why they are so revered today - they suffered for the Energy/Essence distinction. Further, the hierarchical structure was uncanonical and blasphemous until St. Tsar Nicholas the Second put a stop to the 'sergianism' (although that word had yet to be coined) that was strangling the church and restored the canonical order (allowing for a brief golden age of Russian spirituality.) These issues lead many Russian Hierarchs to fear that the entire Russian Church would be put under anathema by the other patriarchates (especially Constantinople.)

 

[Rusviking876]

Pre-revolutionary Russia wasn't great either. From Peter the Great onward, the Energy/Essence distinction was almost entirely denied - it was a Church of Barlaamites. Even as late as 1913, books were in common publication that called hesychasm heresy. The elders of Optina were an exception - and that's part of why they are so revered today - they suffered for the Energy/Essence distinction. Further, the hierarchical structure was uncanonical and blasphemous until St. Tsar Nicholas the Second put a stop to the 'sergianism' (although that word had yet to be coined) that was strangling the church and restored the canonical order (allowing for a brief golden age of Russian spirituality.) These issues lead many Russian Hierarchs to fear that the entire Russian Church would be put under anathema by the other patriarchates (especially Constantinople.)

Peter and Catherine were atrocious individuals, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Old Russia produced many saints in the last few centuries of the Empire.

 

[Rusviking876]

Pre-revolutionary Russia wasn't great either. From Peter the Great onward, the Energy/Essence distinction was almost entirely denied - it was a Church of Barlaamites. Even as late as 1913, books were in common publication that called hesychasm heresy. The elders of Optina were an exception - and that's part of why they are so revered today - they suffered for the Energy/Essence distinction. Further, the hierarchical structure was uncanonical and blasphemous until St. Tsar Nicholas the Second put a stop to the 'sergianism' (although that word had yet to be coined) that was strangling the church and restored the canonical order (allowing for a brief golden age of Russian spirituality.) These issues lead many Russian Hierarchs to fear that the entire Russian Church would be put under anathema by the other patriarchates (especially Constantinople.)

Can you cite sources for your claims about Barlaamism? To say Russia had a few bad emperors is not the same as saying all of Russian Orthodoxy went into heresy from Peter I to Nicholas II (which is what it appears you’re saying).

 

[Euodius]

Can you cite sources for your claims about Barlaamism? To say Russia had a few bad emperors is not the same as saying all of Russian Orthodoxy went into heresy from Peter I to Nicholas II (which is what it appears you’re saying).

Happened to have a source on hand from my current study, because I'm compiling a book critiquing Old Calendarism. So, the article I'll share isn't on this topic, but it is discussed at some length.

I'll pull out a few relevant bits;

St. Barsanuphius gave a talk on the subject saying,

"He (Fr. Benedict) was given several tasks to perform by the elder—among other things, to find out if the Jesus Prayer was being done in monasteries. He travelled to many monasteries and convents and came to a sad conclusion: this most necessary prayer has been abandoned almost everywhere, especially in convents. Those who are still doing it are like candles that are almost burnt down.

Earlier, it was not only monks who did the Jesus Prayer—it was also done without fail by people in the world (for instance, the famous historical figure Speransky did the Jesus Prayer and was always joyful, despite his many labors). But now even monks regard this labor distrustfully. For example, one might say to another, “Have you heard?”
“What?”
“Fr. Peter has begun doing the Jesus Prayer.”
“Really? Well, he’ll probably go out of his mind.”"

Fr. John Romanides talking about a similar phenomena in Greece,

"It [hesychasm] was persecuted because the countries in which it had flourished started to become Westernized politically as was the case in Russia after the reforms of Peter the Great and in Greece after the revolution of 1821…

The Franks knew full well that they had correctly identified hesychasm as the source of Orthodoxy’s strength. So what did they do to get rid of it? After the Revolution of 1821 and the founding of the Modern Greek State, the Franks deliberately set out to undermine hesychasm, and Adamantios Korais took it upon himself to do just that. After the revolution of 1821, Korais declared war against hesychasm at the same time that the Russians and the Europeans were also setting their sights at undermining hesychasm and uprooting it from the Christian tradition. This is how we have reached the point where today we consider hesychasm to be an unimportant detail within Orthodox tradition and an insignificant phenomenon from the past. In fact, we learned from the textbooks that we used in junior high that hesychasm is a heresy, a trivial and marginal tradition…"

The Nastol’naia Kniga [Handbook frin 1913] has an entry on Hesychasm in a section dedicated to “Schisms, Heresies, Sects, Etc.” informing us that

“a group of monastic mystics in Greece in the fourteenth century distinguished by the strangest reveries. They honored the navel as the center of spiritual energies and, consequently, the center of contemplation; they thought that, by lowering their chin towards the chest and gazing at their navel, they would see the light of Paradise and rejoice in seeing celestial inhabitants.”

The entry concludes by telling us that, happily, the

“nonsensical opinion of the Hesychasts about the means of the apprehension of the uncreated light was soon given over to oblivion on its own” …

Check out the letters of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov or the stories of the persecution of the Elders of Optina.

From: Panagiotis M. A Critique of Old Calendarist Ecclesiology

 

[Euodius]

Can you cite sources for your claims about Barlaamism? To say Russia had a few bad emperors is not the same as saying all of Russian Orthodoxy went into heresy from Peter I to Nicholas II (which is what it appears you’re saying).

Finally, I'll add, it never was "all," but it certainly became "most."

 

[Rusviking876]

Happened to have a source on hand from my current study, because I'm compiling a book critiquing Old Calendarism. So, the article I'll share isn't on this topic, but it is discussed at some length.

I'll pull out a few relevant bits;

St. Barsanuphius gave a talk on the subject saying,

"He (Fr. Benedict) was given several tasks to perform by the elder—among other things, to find out if the Jesus Prayer was being done in monasteries. He travelled to many monasteries and convents and came to a sad conclusion: this most necessary prayer has been abandoned almost everywhere, especially in convents. Those who are still doing it are like candles that are almost burnt down.

Earlier, it was not only monks who did the Jesus Prayer—it was also done without fail by people in the world (for instance, the famous historical figure Speransky did the Jesus Prayer and was always joyful, despite his many labors). But now even monks regard this labor distrustfully. For example, one might say to another, “Have you heard?”
“What?”
“Fr. Peter has begun doing the Jesus Prayer.”
“Really? Well, he’ll probably go out of his mind.”"

Fr. John Romanides talking about a similar phenomena in Greece,

"It [hesychasm] was persecuted because the countries in which it had flourished started to become Westernized politically as was the case in Russia after the reforms of Peter the Great and in Greece after the revolution of 1821…

The Franks knew full well that they had correctly identified hesychasm as the source of Orthodoxy’s strength. So what did they do to get rid of it? After the Revolution of 1821 and the founding of the Modern Greek State, the Franks deliberately set out to undermine hesychasm, and Adamantios Korais took it upon himself to do just that. After the revolution of 1821, Korais declared war against hesychasm at the same time that the Russians and the Europeans were also setting their sights at undermining hesychasm and uprooting it from the Christian tradition. This is how we have reached the point where today we consider hesychasm to be an unimportant detail within Orthodox tradition and an insignificant phenomenon from the past. In fact, we learned from the textbooks that we used in junior high that hesychasm is a heresy, a trivial and marginal tradition…"

The Nastol’naia Kniga [Handbook frin 1913] has an entry on Hesychasm in a section dedicated to “Schisms, Heresies, Sects, Etc.” informing us that

“a group of monastic mystics in Greece in the fourteenth century distinguished by the strangest reveries. They honored the navel as the center of spiritual energies and, consequently, the center of contemplation; they thought that, by lowering their chin towards the chest and gazing at their navel, they would see the light of Paradise and rejoice in seeing celestial inhabitants.”

The entry concludes by telling us that, happily, the

“nonsensical opinion of the Hesychasts about the means of the apprehension of the uncreated light was soon given over to oblivion on its own” …

Check out the letters of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov or the stories of the persecution of the Elders of Optina.

From: Panagiotis M. A Critique of Old Calendarist Ecclesiology

The Franks were still around in 1821? Do you mean Latins?

The books I recommended don't have to do with hesychasm but rather political philosophy from the late 19th/early 20th century, all approved by the Church at the time they were written (and today). I don't know much about hesychasm to be honest; I'll have to look into it more. As someone who's been to Russian monasteries in Russia, they do say the Jesus prayer and teach it to laymen.

On another note, how do you respond to claims that Fr. Romanides was not Chalcedonian and that he praised Luther? I've also read (second hand) that Romanides claimed man does not have direct, definite and certain knowledge of God.​

 

[Euodius]

The Franks were still around in 1821? Do you mean Latins?​

When Fr. Romanides said "Franks," he was talking about the Latins - from the term Frankokratia. Most of the Latins in Greece were either French or Venetian.

The books I recommended don't have to do with hesychasm but rather political philosophy from the late 19th/early 20th century, all approved by the Church at the time they were written (and today). I don't know much about hesychasm to be honest; I'll have to look into it more. As someone who's been to Russian monasteries in Russia, they do say the Jesus prayer and teach it to laymen.

I don't know what books you recommended. However, modern Russia certainly doesn't suffer from widespread Barlaamism - that was only a thing from the 1820's to the 1910's. Romanides is highlighting that the West was pushing this heresy in Orthodox countries for Geopoltical reasons.

On another note, how do you respond to claims that Fr. Romanides was not Chalcedonian and that he praised Luther?

I don't respond to these claims. I don't know enough about Romanides. I'm not particularly concerned with him. I would imagine that these claims are exaggerated, but with some foundation. Romanides has recently become the subject of much needed critique, for a while he was held up as a paragon and his errors ignored. The regard for his work has swung back, but probably a bit too far. That's natural, but it's somewhere in between the two extremes. I would expect Romanides to praise Luther for disavowing the papacy, if nothing else.

I've also read (second hand) that Romanides claimed man does not have direct, definite and certain knowledge of God.

The idea that 'man does not have direct, definite and certain knowledge of God' is the direct consequence of Barlaamism. Romanides does outright reject Barlaamism, but that does not mean he managed to deal with all the consequences. Remember, Romanides grew up in culture that taught Barlaamism to the kids - he grew up with it - and therefore had to spend his life struggling against it. If his theology does have the problems these sources you mention claim, it's because he's struggling out of it and struggling to pull his countrymen out of those problems. Part of the reason that we would recognize such a flaw in Romanides would have been the success of the theologians of his generation in returning the orthodox to Orthodoxy.

Just about every theologian you'll read will have problems. They are imperfect. Some moreso, but often they need to be read in context with the struggles of their times. We are all limited to some degree by the times and circumstances of our lives.

In any case, like with mail, take what is good and toss the junkmail.

 

[Euodius]

Peter and Catherine were atrocious individuals, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Old Russia produced many saints in the last few centuries of the Empire.

Strange I didn't see this until just now.

I aim not to throw the baby out with the bath water. What you say is true. Keep in mind though, that many of our Saints, regardless of time or place became saints under Church persecution. St. John Chrysostom died in exile after being unjustly exiled. It is often the grief over a hierarchy which has failed to be a light shining on a hill that has lead some to hold onto truth and Christ with a greater desperation and becoming, through His grace, the light for that time period. During the Arian Crisis, many went to the deserts instead of the churches.

So, keep things in perspective. The Russian Church found itself in a position where it affirmed the Tsar as the final arbiter of all things, not Christ - this was blasphemous (as St. Tsar Nicholas II admitted when he removed this blasphemy from the Spiritual Regulations.) The Holy Synod itself, from the time of Peter the Great to St. Nicholas II, was an office of the secularized government, which alternated representative bishops every 6 months - and was itself run by lay bureaucrats. This is an uncanonical situation. It is also sergianism, as I say, and the Church suffered from Barlaamism at the same time.

However, there was no anathema placed on Russia from the other Churches, so the grace of the Sacraments remained in Russia until Russia healed, experience a brief golden age, and then took the yoke of the Soviets. While a great heresy afflicted the Russian Church (and caused suffering for many), Russia did not separate itself from the Church (and so schism) either. It was still the church. The church produces saints.

 

[Not David]

Strange I didn't see this until just now.

I aim not to throw the baby out with the bath water. What you say is true. Keep in mind though, that many of our Saints, regardless of time or place became saints under Church persecution. St. John Chrysostom died in exile after being unjustly exiled. It is often the grief over a hierarchy which has failed to be a light shining on a hill that has lead some to hold onto truth and Christ with a greater desperation and becoming, through His grace, the light for that time period. During the Arian Crisis, many went to the deserts instead of the churches.

So, keep things in perspective. The Russian Church found itself in a position where it affirmed the Tsar as the final arbiter of all things, not Christ - this was blasphemous (as St. Tsar Nicholas II admitted when he removed this blasphemy from the Spiritual Regulations.) The Holy Synod itself, from the time of Peter the Great to St. Nicholas II, was an office of the secularized government, which alternated representative bishops every 6 months - and was itself run by lay bureaucrats. This is an uncanonical situation. It is also sergianism, as I say, and the Church suffered from Barlaamism at the same time.

However, there was no anathema placed on Russia from the other Churches, so the grace of the Sacraments remained in Russia until Russia healed, experience a brief golden age, and then took the yoke of the Soviets. While a great heresy afflicted the Russian Church (and caused suffering for many), Russia did not separate itself from the Church (and so schism) either. It was still the church. The church produces saints.

Weren't there like 4 saints of the Metropolitan Russian Orthodox established by Tsar Peter the Great?
Why would there be saints of an uncanonical office?

 

[Euodius]

Weren't there like 4 saints of the Metropolitan Russian Orthodox established by Tsar Peter the Great?
Why would there be saints of an uncanonical office?

Are they Saints of an uncanonical office or are they Saints of the Church? The question you mean to ask is, "What is the Church?"

 

[Euodius]

Are they Saints of an uncanonical office or are they Saints of the Church? The question you mean to ask is, "What is the Church?"

I don't have time tonight for long answers about Ecclesiology. Suffice it to say, the Church is not the organization in the same way the person is not the body. However, we don't expect the Church outside the organization in the same way we don't expect a person outside their body. A person is holistic, including the body and his spiritual being. The same is true of the Church which is both visible and invisible. However, a person can be deformed. His body can suffer. His soul can suffer. This is not either or. Sicknesses of the soul manifest physically. Holiness also manifests physically (this is why Saints are found incorrupt.) However, a person's arm could also be chopped out - and he'll still feel ghost pains because his soul still longs for wholeness.

Again, no anathema was placed and no schism occured. Anathema and schism are both acts which cut off a sick part of the body to preserve the integrity of the body. Anathema is like surgery - or rather, amputation - and so what is anathematized is cut off. In schism, the sickness voids itself out of the body. Yet, amputation is not recommended by any doctor except in cases where there is no other way to preserve the integrity of the body. It is, therefore, not something to be hasty about - it is the final disciplinary action. Rebuke and excommunication must come first as calls for repentance.

The Russian Church may have been ailing, but it was saved. It was not cut off from the Church. It was the Church, despite the deformation it was in at the time. The Church produces saints. The Great Physician worked miracles for Russia.

 

[Rusviking876]

When Fr. Romanides said "Franks," he was talking about the Latins - from the term Frankokratia. Most of the Latins in Greece were either French or Venetian.



I don't know what books you recommended. However, modern Russia certainly doesn't suffer from widespread Barlaamism - that was only a thing from the 1820's to the 1910's. Romanides is highlighting that the West was pushing this heresy in Orthodox countries for Geopoltical reasons.



I don't respond to these claims. I don't know enough about Romanides. I'm not particularly concerned with him. I would imagine that these claims are exaggerated, but with some foundation. Romanides has recently become the subject of much needed critique, for a while he was held up as a paragon and his errors ignored. The regard for his work has swung back, but probably a bit too far. That's natural, but it's somewhere in between the two extremes. I would expect Romanides to praise Luther for disavowing the papacy, if nothing else.



The idea that 'man does not have direct, definite and certain knowledge of God' is the direct consequence of Barlaamism. Romanides does outright reject Barlaamism, but that does not mean he managed to deal with all the consequences. Remember, Romanides grew up in culture that taught Barlaamism to the kids - he grew up with it - and therefore had to spend his life struggling against it. If his theology does have the problems these sources you mention claim, it's because he's struggling out of it and struggling to pull his countrymen out of those problems. Part of the reason that we would recognize such a flaw in Romanides would have been the success of the theologians of his generation in returning the orthodox to Orthodoxy.

Just about every theologian you'll read will have problems. They are imperfect. Some moreso, but often they need to be read in context with the struggles of their times. We are all limited to some degree by the times and circumstances of our lives.

In any case, like with mail, take what is good and toss the junkmail.

What are the geopolitical aspects of Barlaamism? Could you explain.