Orthodoxy's fatal flaw on bishops & ecumenical councils

New video from Bro. Peter Dimond exposing the heretical schismatic and totally untenable beliefs of the eastern "Orthodox".

Other urls found in this thread:

golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_IX_of_France
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Fringe death cult thinks it has any chances to take on Christ's Church

Fundamental video for exposing the heresy of the schismatic eastern 'orthodox' and their heretical theology.

Shorter video on the topic of the heretical topic of the theology schismatic eastern 'rothodox' theology. Still good stuff that gets at the heart of the matter.

This lazy thread exists solely to break rule #2. Grow up.

charity can be interpreted in many ways

So basically you dislike Orthodox Church, you must be either Catholic or Muslim.

Grow up boy. Sure plenty stuff ain't perfect, yet its better than the Pope and pedophile Priests that cant get laid otherwise or will break some imaginery rule of the catholic church.

Classical Theist (Catholic) debates Jay Dyer

Mods are asleep this early in the day. Relax.

Please post criticism of Eastern Orthodoxy from people who aren't complete heretics by all standards and thus can be taken seriously. Thank you.
They've outed themselves as being modalists and as not believing in God's immanence in their video against Palamas. I know they are strongly heretical even for Catholics, so why do you post them?

If Orthodoxy is so flawed debate Jay Dyer tbh

Attached: 38ea1748a4e2ecef5562dd2f9efd0c37385df357ae57248ea6b60bb67f4942fb.jpg (275x356, 30.82K)

Considering Jay Dyer is a terrible theologian, I would rather he not be brought up as a counterpoint to Most Meme Monastery.
Why do the people here always root for crappy polemicist? I'm starting to think that a large size of people here are converts who don't go to church weekly.

I've never heard of Jay Dyer, user, could you tell me about him?

Butthurt losers like to use adhom.

He's an Eastern Orthodox lay theologian but he's really difficult to take seriously, in my opinion. You don't know about him so it would not be proper for me to tell you what I think of him.

He's attempting to be the Orthodox equivalent of E. Michael Jones, but simultaneously also wants to make a career out of analyzing the esoteric messages of marvel movies.

ah, is there any more classic match-up in history?

Wait. So now an e-celeb is a determinant if something is heretical or not?
I am not arguing in favor of the videos, I have not seen them…it is just that "if X is heresy, debate Jay Dyer" is a pretty lame rebuttal.

i don't understand armchair theologians. how can you pretend to know if you don't even read the original texts you are arguing about? i mean greek and latin are requirements for clergy, why shouldn't it be so for lay theologians too?

Some dude tried to get them to debate and Jay flat out refused

The guy in the video is a clown who says Orthodoxy is pantheism. I would not take the time to debate him as he sounds like an idiot.

Attached: 9F5A3471-F260-4786-9560-4F6FA121A675.jpeg (316x400, 100.42K)

I'm just going to be honest, refusing to debate someone and resorting to ad hominoms doesn't help his case, it makes him look like he doesn't actually know what he's talking about. I sincerely would like to see a debate between the two, but it probably won't happen.

Not him, but there are cases when you just have to sweep a dust of your foot and there's no point in debating.
Example is Anderson who has heard about Theosis and how its about "To become god" and automatically concluded that it had to be automatically related to Hindu autism about "le merging with the absolute and complete annihilation of oneself".
I'm not the biggest fan of Jay, he's really try to act like a professional while he isnt and sometimes goes against the works of actual priests and bishops. But he's right in this case.

I'm not a sedevacantist, but it's unfair to say that mhfm is on the level of Anderson. The Dimonds might be insane, but none of what they're putting out there is completely baseless either.

DEBATE ME

Attached: Jay.jpg (1180x842, 115.16K)

wait, was Dyer really a Sede when he was a catholic?

and this is relevant how, considering that sedes also acknowledge Thomism?

It's incredibly relevant, seeing that a Sede is not really a Catholic. They are about as Catholic as the Angelicans or…well, EOC.

He seriously said that?

Attached: 14cff7ba8c2c7413b42ed112a6e24dff1a83be6e2066bc9fb084080f107bac22.png (1079x1367, 2.06M)

I'm -almost- glad he went Orthodox, who needs a back-biter like that?

Tell me about it.

Attached: 835b5a27b172a71787e2f4215b688e00d190d9e4786f39fcc9f85ef14d09d7b4.jpeg (640x960, 95K)

He was also influenced in his conversion by Joseph Farrell, a respectable theologian that has written masterpieces such as:

You call him an eceleb or whatever but Dyer can’t debate everyone. It’s fine if you don’t like Dyer personally, but everyone on the internet with a spergy opinion thinks they have the right to be debated. I would say if you think Orthodoxy is pantheism you’re probably debating in bad faith or an idiot.

The peanut gallery here really have no understanding of the theological differences between EOC and RC. You’re looking for a “gotcha” adhom argument that proves everything Dyer says incorrect. There isn’t one.

he asks everyone that so much as says hello to debate him…

Based Brother Peter already destroyed that heretic tool of Satan in the third video.

I watched the video and it doesn’t really say much more than what Latin apologists on here say. Rock of Peter. Repeat. Rock of Peter. The Vatican are a bunch of heretics? Rock of Peter! The pope is an apostate who prays with heretics? Rock of Peter! Repeat Rock of Peter whenever you are in trouble! It’s not an argument dude, where in that passage does Christ say “the successors of Peter even if they are apostates will have universal dominion over all princes and other bishops”. Christ doesn’t say that. It’s a bad argument. That idea is of a universal Bishop is condemned by Pope Gregory the Great.

Fun fact: His immediate successor claimed that very same universal authority he condemned, leading the Protestant reformers to refer to Gregory as the last bishop of Rome.

absolute lel

Did you even know what Pope Gregory ment by the "universal bishop"? He was talking about the See of Constantinople claiming the title of Ecumenical Patriarch. The Pope condemed this because it was clearly usurping the authority Jesus gave St. Peter and his successors after him.
If the Prot's claim is true and the Pope was bashing his own authority, why didn't Pope Gregory abolish the Papacy then and there?
Spoiler alert:
it's because the prots are wrong
always have been
and always will be

Attached: greg-the-great.jpg (224x292, 19.57K)

Because there was no papacy yet, silly. That's why he's the last bishop of Rome

The papacy has always existed, bud.

It's always existed? Woah, I didn't know the pope was older than creation

Pope Gregory I's argument wasn't "only I can be called universal bishop" but "no one can be called universal bishop, or rather every bishop is universal".
You're getting him confused with a later Pope (whose name I forgot and can't check right now), who did condemn the title of Ecumenical Patriarch because it seemed like an attack on the Papacy's authority. But for Gregory it seemed rather like an attack on the episcopacy as a whole, as he understood it.
I'm not saying this to argue about whether Pope Gregory's view was Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. I'm just correcting you.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Attached: embarrasing.jpg (500x281, 45.73K)

False:
golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm

Muh yoga. Lol what Palamas was defending had nothing to do with yoga you winne the poohing liars. It's a prayer practice that helps us with our breathing. Monasteries in the West generally became completely secular places and today they are like hotels. Eastern monasticism has always been devoted to rejecting modernity and keeping the true faith. According to ADS we can never experience uncreated energy and this has led the West to atheism, Palamas did nothing wrong.

Orthodoxy has nothing to do with Protestantism. Protestantism originated out of Catholic Germany, they had zero contact with the Orthodox East. That's fakenews.

The real schism began when the Pope crowned a Western emperor even though there was already a Roman emperor in Constantinople.

I think there are a lot of Catholics who make this error that the Orthodox hate popes. Gregory the Great is an Orthodox saint. We just hold a different view on the definition of the primacy that Rome has (had, back when the popes were Orthodox).

Later on in the video it exposes how eastern "orthodox" theology is literally polytheism. It's quite shocking at how heretical the eastern "orthodox" are.

No one actually believes this except people being intellectually dishonest or misled.

The video says if you reject absolute divine simplicity then you are a pantheist. NO. THAT. DOES. NOT. FOLLOW. RC theology was infused with monistic Helenic thought which is where ADS is from. To claim that the very act of differentiating God's energies from His essence is polytheism is theologically illiterate.

If God were absolutely simple, then His justice would be the same thing as His foresight and the same as His love, on and on. It would render these categories totally useless.

If God were absolutely simple, He would never be able to appear at a specific time or space as He did to Moses or during the transfiguration. RCC claims the apostles just saw some light during the transfiguration. No. That removes all meaning from the event. The apostles were witnessing God's uncreated energies. God is personal but ADS holds that we cannot experience uncreated energies since according to ADS God is only essence.

what's quite shocking is that video's lack of understanding of Orthodox theology.
Here's some better reading material for you.

The Orthodox historically accepted a "vicar" of Christ of sorts: They just saw it in the worldly emperors instead. Just the fact that they canonize Constantine and Justinian as saints in their church illustrates how much of a liking they have for the State (not even Rome does that.. and didn't even do it with Charlemagne, except the invalid ruling of a pretender pope). And the fact they've always slowly mobilized the church without the help of the State is another illustration. It stagnates without Byzantium or Russia. It holds many truths, but it's sadly not a strong entity in itself. You can't say that about Rome, which sees all of it's power within the realm of "Church" alone, regardless of State.

Not to say Rome is faultless either. I think after being bullied by these emperors (Justinian, for one), it slowly reimagined itself in an imperial light in it's own right, and later developed the papacy as we came to know it… as a way to counter these worldly tyrants actually. But Rome never saw the need to do this originally. Petrine leadership in the first 3 centuries of the church was more of a intimate and familial thing (rather than the impersonal/governmental).

No, the Pope at one time in history was argued to have universal dominion over all princes in RCC doctrine. You can't get any more worldly than that.

In Byzantium, church and state, crown and altar worked in unison as opposed to today when the secular state persecutes religion. We all have different abilities, military saints are one hundred percent orthodox. The early church fathers defend capital punishment and just war theory, this was not cucked in any way. Often Orthodox monarchs would take holy orders before they died as the imperium was about more than worldly glory and military might. Take off those protestant rose colored glasses.

The reality was that the emperor had limited influence and the bishops were able to curtail it.

This thread is basically the peanut gallery taking shots at Orthodoxy.

Actually, I dislike the Dimond brothers for the same reason I dislike Dyer, lay-man theologians involving themselves in something they are not qualified for, for reasons that have nothing to do with Christianity.

Be my guest, throw up all your faith in Dyer instead of an actual Orthodox theologian, don't cry if he lets you down.

Orthodoxy = heresy, schism, polytheism, paganism. Only a fool would adhere to this false man-made religion. Lol just lol @ thinking this book would do anything to refute these points made by the great Dimond brothers, one of the few theological lights in this corrupt world today. They have years and years of debating experience, destroying and exposing heretics like prots, Vatican II sect adherents and orthocucks in the process.


Good point, Orthodoxy has always been slavish servants of worldy power. Just look at how they worship Putin.

Sounds like you have a vendetta against the man. I never said he's the only person worth listening to.

If there were more Orthodox theologians posted, I'd be happy to listen to them.

The Dimond brothers are leaps and bounds above the heretic Jay Dyer. The Dimond brothers always destroy protestkek, orthocucks and Vatican II sect cucks in their debates.

Attached: you keep using that word.gif (500x281, 983.33K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_IX_of_France

Also, that's not an argument. If you accept, even for argument's sake, the idea of sainthood in general, why would kings be except from being saints?

Being a sede means rejecting all popes after Pope Pius XII and has nothing to do with being a Thomist.

repeating "heretical schismatic orthodox theology" won't make it true.
your videos are worthless and Jay is clearly living Rent Free in your head.


kek^ all these insecure dorks obsessed with Jay, can't debate his presentation of orthodoxy or his critiques of roman catholicism, just attack his character.