Catholic responses to Jay Dyer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Akzum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Akzum

Guest
Does anyone know of Jay Dyer? He’s a Catholic convert to Orthodoxy that makes many videos attacking the Church (mostly attacking the Roman Church and its theology I’m not sure what he thinks of Eastern Catholics). Are there any good responses to Jay Dyer, from either an Eastern or Roman Catholic perspective? Are his arguments the typical anti-Papacy, anti-Filioque, and anti-Scholastic viewpoints of Eastern Orthodox polemics?
 
I like Dyer, and I’ve seen his anti-Filioque arguments before. But all one has to do is show scripture supporting that it is also the Spirit of the Son. Dyer is very focused on how these two views changed entire worldviews and even course of civilizations… (it’s a bit much imo), but I don’t know what he actually has to say against scripture. It doesn’t fit neatly in the Eastern view. They overly rely on the one quote Jesus made in John, but the Holy Spirit is also said to be of the Son in Gal 6:4 - “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’”
 
Are there any of his videos that you recommend watching? I know he’s probably best known for his political/conspiracy videos. I did in fact hear the argument about the Filioque shaping the path of the West vs the East, very strange stuff.
 
I haven’t watched all of them. If you’ve seen his West vs East stuff, you’ve probably seen the same things as me. But I’ve also seen him on live streams, which aren’t recorded on his site, I think?
 
I haven’t watched really much of it, I’ve peaked at his blog before, he also apparently had a debate with Nick Fuentes over Catholicism, which I heard Fuentes kind of bombed.
 
Just the standard apologetic resources that concern Orthodoxy, really. There’s nothing particularly new in anything I’ve seen him say.
 
I haven’t seen that. I heard some people want him to debate E Michael Jones. That would be interesting… since they talk about many of the big things in civilization. I wonder if Dyer has learned from him and simply applied it to Orthodoxy.
 
Yeah, we’ll see how that debate turns out if it ever happens.
 
I finally listened to Nick and Jay’s debate. It’s a lot more robust than I understood at first.

Jay brings up an important point to many Catholics even here: That this original faulty thinking in Rome (in the vid below) led to V2 and the watering down of the Church, where it taught that God need not be taught in a specific person, but can be seen in many expressions (tried to get around the time point):

Some of the theology is over my head, but I can’t help but share disgust with traditionalists on how far ecumenism in the Church has gone (especially when it’s ecumenism for religions that reject Christ!). I still appreciate V2 for loosening requirements on vernacular usage, but the rest is a bridge too far.
 
Last edited:
That is what I heard was his main argument, that Fuentes’ inability to have a traditionalist position on the council or directly address it made his arguments weak.
 
Akzum said:
That is what I heard was his main argument, that Fuentes’ inability to have a traditionalist position on the council or directly address it made his arguments weak.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Fuentes means well but he was just way overmatched. Jay was a former SSPX-affiliated Catholic before becoming Orthodox, so he knows all the Latin-rite “Trad” Catholic theology and arguments, and has figured out ways to undermine them. That gives him an inherent advantage in debates against RC apologists who don’t know much about Eastern Orthodox or pre-Vatican II Latin theology.
 
Last edited:
I thought he began as evangelical and converted. Either way I don’t see how anyone could convert to Catholicism and then leave it for Orthodox (unless they had an issue of regarding marriage/divorce/‘seminary-love’)

Hebrews 6:4-8 It is IMPOSSIBLE to BRING BACK to REPENTANCE those who were ONCE enlightened… in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the GOODNESS of the word of God… but who then FALL AWAY from God. It is IMPOSSIBLE to bring such people BACK to REPENTANCE; by REJECTING the Son of God, THEY THEMSELVES are nailing him to the cross ONCE AGAIN and holding him up to PUBLIC SHAME . [They are now] REJECTED and near to being CURSED , whose END is to be BURNED
 
SnoopSword said:
I thought he began as evangelical and converted. Either way I don’t see how anyone could convert to Catholicism and then leave it for Orthodox
Click to expand...
I don’t know Jay IRL, but I’ve corresponded with him for many years. He started out as a Protestant, then converted to regular Catholicism (for lack of a better term). Then he became a “Trad” Catholic and about 8 years ago he became Eastern Orthodox. Interestingly enough, I don’t think he ever flirted with Eastern Catholicism along the way.

I know plenty of people who have converted to EO from Catholicism. Almost all of them did it because they think the state of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church proves that it officially reversed its supposedly infallible teaching on such things as salvation outside the Church religious liberty, etc. If true, it would mean that the Church defected, therefore the RCC can’t be the one, true Church. They also think the Novus Ordo Mass is synthetic Protestant trash. “Well, what about the Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy or the EF Mass,” falls on deaf ears when 98% of the Masses said in the Catholic Communion are the Novus Ordo.

I don’t agree with them, but that’s what they believe and why.
 
Thanks for bringing this up. I’ve wanted to knowing more about this, the Filioque in particular, but also about Jay Dyer. I do remember there being at least a few passages of Scripture that quite clearly show the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son–although I figure the issue must be more complicated.
 
NJada said:
I do remember there being at least a few passages of Scripture that quite clearly show the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son–although I figure the issue must be more complicated.
Click to expand...
This is a good one

Rev 22

The River of Life
22 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb
 
Benadam said:
The River of Life

22 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb
Click to expand...
Oh, that is a good one!
I just looked up how we know the River of Life is the Holy Spirit, and found this nice passage too:

And on the last, and great day of the festivity, Jesus stood and cried, saying: If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink. He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive, who believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
(Jn 7:37-39)
 
straykat said:
…led to V2 and the watering down of the Church, where it taught that God need not be taught in a specific person, but can be seen in many expressions (tried to get around the time point):
…
Click to expand...
Strange thing to say by Jay because the Catholic Church does not teach that Christ is not needed for salvation (for example Muslims, Jews). It appears as a straw man argument.

Catechism 846 has regarding Outside the Church there is no salvation:
it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body
Click to expand...
St. Thomas Aquinas, S.T. Q112
I answer that, Nothing can act beyond its species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2112.htm
Click to expand...
 
SnoopSword said:
I thought he began as evangelical and converted. Either way I don’t see how anyone could convert to Catholicism and then leave it for Orthodox (unless they had an issue of regarding marriage/divorce/‘seminary-love’)
Click to expand...
This is actually remarkably common. Whenever we get a convert to Catholicism in my parish who has just discovered Easter Christianity, it is almost inevitable that they will move on to Orthodoxy. This rarely happens with cradle Catholics.
 
Do you understand what hes critiquing? If not that i would take what hes saying with a grain of salt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top