Debate/Discussion: Suaidan v Whiteford

Feel free to tell our little section of the Internet why you're right. Forum rules apply.


eish
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon 11 March 2024 2:15 pm
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Metropolia

Re: Debate/Discussion: Suaidan v Whiteford

Post by eish »

I don't think so. The problem is that heresy IS off the rails. The moment you accept two contradictory ideas as true, it becomes possible for you to reason yourself into any absurdity whatsoever. It isn't even some abstract philosophical idea, but a mathematically proven fact. (The Principle of Explosion.)

The longer one stays in it, the more one sees the contradictions and wilfully chooses to compromise on principles, the more this manifests and therefore the crazier one's positions start to become.

The preceding is just the intellectual manifestation of the problem. Add onto it that as the Fathers teach, our thoughts are not our own but are a mixture of what is inherent to our own soul and what is coming from the spirits we interact with. By consciously compromising Truth and Faith (in the case of someone like Fr. John who knew Sergianism as heresy and swept that under the rug for union), one enters fully into communion with demons.

Those demons already, for all people, are trying to poison our ideas and ways of thinking with falsehood. Those outside the Church and worse, those in apostasy, additionally have their minds subverted and can be easily manipulated. That is why for example, Fr. John and Craig do not think they are wrong. They are comfortable in heresy and demons can very easily suggest plausible-sounding reasoning to justify actions and words which they think of as their own, and correct. Even inside the Church it is very, very easy for us to fall into it.

Every heretic, every apostate, every atheist, every pagan, every Jew, will come into a debate with demonic thinking. These may sound very convincing to the inattentive or uninformed, or really anyone who does not honestly seek the truth out in humility. Just read the comments from their supporters--they can't see truth. The positions are not truly their own but were whispered into their minds by hyperintelligent malicious entities, who could craftily design arguments as easily as you and I breathe. Only because God restrains them, have they not presented through our opponents such brilliant deceptions that all of us would have been convinced.

Evil may be deceptively clever, but it is also insane. The World Orthodox position eventually devolves into mad arguments when you dig deep precisely because it is a world-view that contradicts itself. (Principle of Explosion, once again.) So does every false religion. There is no way to have the debate without it--one just has to address the madness head-on.

User avatar
Suaidan
Protoposter
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu 8 April 2004 2:31 pm
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Metropolia of the Americas
Location: Northeast PA

Re: Debate/Discussion: Suaidan v Whiteford

Post by Suaidan »

The problem was ultimately a lack of a neutral moderator.

Fr Joseph Suaidan (Suaiden, same guy)

User avatar
NektariosLopez
Jr Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon 1 January 2024 6:32 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC-K

Re: Debate/Discussion: Suaidan v Whiteford

Post by NektariosLopez »

eish wrote: Thu 16 January 2025 10:07 am

I don't think so. The problem is that heresy IS off the rails. The moment you accept two contradictory ideas as true, it becomes possible for you to reason yourself into any absurdity whatsoever. It isn't even some abstract philosophical idea, but a mathematically proven fact. (The Principle of Explosion.)

The longer one stays in it, the more one sees the contradictions and wilfully chooses to compromise on principles, the more this manifests and therefore the crazier one's positions start to become.

The preceding is just the intellectual manifestation of the problem. Add onto it that as the Fathers teach, our thoughts are not our own but are a mixture of what is inherent to our own soul and what is coming from the spirits we interact with. By consciously compromising Truth and Faith (in the case of someone like Fr. John who knew Sergianism as heresy and swept that under the rug for union), one enters fully into communion with demons.

Those demons already, for all people, are trying to poison our ideas and ways of thinking with falsehood. Those outside the Church and worse, those in apostasy, additionally have their minds subverted and can be easily manipulated. That is why for example, Fr. John and Craig do not think they are wrong. They are comfortable in heresy and demons can very easily suggest plausible-sounding reasoning to justify actions and words which they think of as their own, and correct. Even inside the Church it is very, very easy for us to fall into it.

Every heretic, every apostate, every atheist, every pagan, every Jew, will come into a debate with demonic thinking. These may sound very convincing to the inattentive or uninformed, or really anyone who does not honestly seek the truth out in humility. Just read the comments from their supporters--they can't see truth. The positions are not truly their own but were whispered into their minds by hyperintelligent malicious entities, who could craftily design arguments as easily as you and I breathe. Only because God restrains them, have they not presented through our opponents such brilliant deceptions that all of us would have been convinced.

Evil may be deceptively clever, but it is also insane. The World Orthodox position eventually devolves into mad arguments when you dig deep precisely because it is a world-view that contradicts itself. (Principle of Explosion, once again.) So does every false religion. There is no way to have the debate without it--one just has to address the madness head-on.

Don’t worry, they’ll give a good justification for why they’re the True Orthodox…

Attachments
IMG_1788.jpeg
IMG_1788.jpeg (822.1 KiB) Viewed 5706 times

“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." -St Luke 12:32

User avatar
Suaidan
Protoposter
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu 8 April 2004 2:31 pm
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Metropolia of the Americas
Location: Northeast PA

Re: Debate/Discussion: Suaidan v Whiteford

Post by Suaidan »

My last word on the matter, from last week. It would appear that they want to keep talking about it....

Fr Joseph Suaidan (Suaiden, same guy)

User avatar
SavaBeljovic
Member
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue 9 January 2024 1:19 pm
Faith: True Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: ROAC
Location: Abita Springs, Louisiana

Re: Debate/Discussion: Suaidan v Whiteford

Post by SavaBeljovic »

I know Father said his last word on this, but me and our dearest brother Ezekiel were talking about the debate/discussion with Fr. Joseph and Fr. John, and it was interesting that Fr. John said Sergianism "isn't a heresy", yet will argue that the definition of Sergianism doesn't fit the MP anyway, and that Sergius "repented" in this unlikely story he tells about some MP pseudo-elder.

So which one is it? If Sergianism isn't a heresy, then by his standard Sergius didn't have to repent, nor need to. And if it's not a heresy, even if the MP did fit the definitions he will argue about, they're not in heresy!

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

User avatar
NektariosLopez
Jr Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon 1 January 2024 6:32 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC-K

Re: Debate/Discussion: Suaidan v Whiteford

Post by NektariosLopez »

SavaBeljovic wrote: Fri 31 January 2025 4:01 pm

I know Father said his last word on this, but me and our dearest brother Ezekiel were talking about the debate/discussion with Fr. Joseph and Fr. John, and it was interesting that Fr. John said Sergianism "isn't a heresy", yet will argue that the definition of Sergianism doesn't fit the MP anyway, and that Sergius "repented" in this unlikely story he tells about some MP pseudo-elder.

So which one is it? If Sergianism isn't a heresy, then by his standard Sergius didn't have to repent, nor need to. And if it's not a heresy, even if the MP did fit the definitions he will argue about, they're not in heresy!

That's one of the main tactics I've learned that is often employed in WO apologia, goalpost shifting. Ive dealt with those who've said, "well the saints don't break communion..." then you proceed to show counter to the their narrative, then it becomes, "well, there's never been a parallel synod..." then we continue this until at some point some will feel cornered and attempt to say that either "heresy isn't tecnically a heresy" or that "heretics are part of the Church" which the latter seems more prevalent since many seem to imply this from "well we have to wait for the official council.." As well as the narrative of heretics the Church has dealt with, "Arian bishops were still part of the Church until..." or that "such and such saint addressed x heretic bishop as his grace or holiness so that proves my point..."
Seems built on gotchas around technicalities of canons or particular historical events taken out of context.

It's a squirrely game to play.

This ties into what I just heard from Fr Steven Allen mention, as I'm re-listening to his talks on I.M. Andreyev's work about the Soviet church and Grace, that Andreyev was stressing that it isn't enough to externally confess the Nicene creed and the dogmas, and have all the beautiful iconography and golden churches, but that we must discern the Truth, otherwise we idolize the organization that's simply "Orthodox in appearance."

“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." -St Luke 12:32

User avatar
NektariosLopez
Jr Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon 1 January 2024 6:32 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC-K

Re: Debate/Discussion: Suaidan v Whiteford

Post by NektariosLopez »

I just found this and perhaps related to this discussion about Fr John argument.

Knowing this is posted on rocorstudies, it seems they're misinterpreting the letter to justify themselves but not sure, at least based on this:

From Editor

When I came to the seminary in Jordanville in 1990, I was shocked that the locals there would call us students from Russia “Soviets.” I did not consider myself a Soviet back then. (Now I would go “whatever.”) In this letter, St. John touches on the term “the Soviet Church,” used during the Cold War by professors of Holy Trinity Seminary like Archbishop Averky, Archimandrite Constantine (Zaitsev), and Ivan M. Andreev. Rusʹ was under the Mongol yoke for over two hundred years; the tiny principality of Moscow was a direct beneficiary of Mongol rule. However, surely none of the people who labeled us “Soviets” would argue that Muscovites should have been called Mongols…

Protodeacon Andrei Psarev,
September 23, 2023

Though, as I read through the letter I don't think St John of SF meant it the way the editor did. It seems he is trying to conflate the Mongol rule as the same as the Soviets but from my limited understanding of that part of history, the Mongols weren't controlling a pseudo church.

Any thoughts?

https://www.rocorstudies.org/2024/03/21 ... conoclasm/

“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." -St Luke 12:32

Post Reply