For those who want to see the image of the yearly Catholic tithe. It actually says: "Say, Jesus..." then underneath "your personal assistant is always listening" www.diocesemontreal.org/actualite/actualite/lecteur-actualites/items/resultats-preleminaires-de-la-collecte-annuelle.html
I read it as that I am a mindless, drone-ish personal asisstant of Jesus. Which is at least troubling as well. And gives guys like Harris something to chew on :-D This just gives how divorced and secularized from tradition the modern Christians have become.
i read it that way too. it seems like an attempt to get people's attention by feeding candy to the ego and its dreams. like: "so, how do we reach out to the young people? we have to compete with this technology.... any ideas?"
There is no generic hierarchy, and this will become even more apparent in the digital age. There are a multitude of competence hierarchies depending on the context / arena. This was even the case in the ancient world. The old were wiser, the young more athletic. Covering these natural hierarchies over with one of a generalized dogma (e.g. divine right of kings, noble blood) may have been a pragmatic lie (at best a necessary evil) but that time seems to be coming to a close, and this should be celebrated. medium.com/deep-code/the-future-of-organization-b26219e5fc95 How do you propose the monarchy you recently mentioned you view as the best form of government work (as in, who would be chosen as the monarch, and how would rule be passed on? By blood again? How do you think the gargantuan problems of nepotism, the corruption of power, and incompetence via lack of skill / training / meritocracy would be resolved? Or do you think there's simply a need for a symbolic but largely potentless figurehead like in the UK and Japan? That I can understand more) Of course, the spiritual hierarchy absolutely should have the transcendent / sacred / God as highest, followed by love and the good, true and beautiful (I'm partial to Scheler's pyramid of values here).
I'm not sure I'd consider myself a christian, which I hope doesn't automatically render me profane, but I appreciate your videos, intellect and insight. Subbed.
I have been told that I'm not a Christian since I was young by other people. I declare that I am. I don't think everyone has the same idea of what it means to be a Christian. If we can keep seeing the good in each other and supporting the best of each other we are building God's kingdom. From what you've said here, I would like more people around like you.
When I'd just become a Christian, Protestant, about three years ago, one of the things I was curious about was the place of the Law. When I brought this up, their response was very worried but also a bit confused. They agreed with my intuition that, even if the Law isn't binding on us anymore, wouldn't it still be good to follow? They didn't quite tell me that I shouldn't explore it, but one thing I was cautioned against was to be careful that I wouldn't consider myself better than other Christians. I get that pride is a sin, but something about this has always seemed off to me. It's not merely a warning against pride, something about it suggests that the idea of one Christian being higher than another is in itself wrong. But is it really? This concept of hierarchy described here, and that the saints are "higher Christians" than I am, I notice it's really touching the core of this matter. Surely if there's such a thing as absolute right and wrong, then there must also be better and worse. I think it's extremely dangerous to be so scared of pride that you would reject the idea of becoming a better Christian. Equating righteousness to pride, thereby making it a sin, is thoroughly confused. The idea of climbing a hierarchy of righteousness sounds exciting to me. The sola fide alternative where Jesus and I are effectively equals already and all I have to do is whatever I want, just wearing His righteousness to pass through judgement and then instantly be holy somehow, not only seems counterintuitive, but also sounds nearly as pointless as the nihilist atheism that I came from. Why even do anything, if nothing I do can ever be remotely adequate, but I will still get a perfect grade at the end of it? What point is there in continuing my sinful life if all it does is add to the penalty that Jesus must endure? Why not just die immediately and be holy so I can stop hurting Him? The more I think about it, the more I conclude that sola fide just doesn't add up. I think the only reason most Protestants accept it is because they actually enjoy their activities in this world of sin somehow, but I don't. I turned to Christ because there's nothing here for me in this world. Giving my life to Christ was a reasonably easy choice, since I didn't want the life anymore anyway. Having to continue the life feels like a burden that I'm willing to endure for Christ. But if they then tell me that actually nothing I contribute actually matters and that I just have to enjoy the ride, feels like a cruel joke. All I want is just one valid reason to remain in this ever collapsing world of sin and death. Just one. The fact that Orthodoxy states that what I do actually makes a difference in my own eternal life, and then logically also for others, in this interconnected hierarchy, is a game changer for me. PS: I didn't get very far on the topic of the Law. Once I realized that a massive amount of it is not even possible for non-Israelites, and that most of the rest is heavily debated within Protestantism, I let it rest for the time being. I'm curious what the Orthodox position about it is.
You are raising some excellent points there. I think if you read about both the Catholic and Orthodox saints you will have great benefit. Also reading the theology of saints who were having direct experiences of God whilst writing the theology would be even better.
As fas as i understand, yes, you are saved "simply" by truly believing (and acting) in christ. but do you just want to be saved or do you want to participate in the conscious expanding creation project of God, even as a small tiny limited human as you are. That doesnt mean forcing others to convert, rather leading by example by being and doing good so others can become inspired. From my own experience, the more you try to become "holy" (as far as thats humanly possible) and not sin, the closer and stronger and more vividly intimate your relationship with God becomes. Blessings 🙏
@@code-cans Hi there. Thank you for your response. I know quite clearly, by now, that what you describe when you say "do you just want to be saved" is not a valid concept, because in the rest of the sentence you speak of it as something different from participating. Participation and salvation are the same thing. This isn't a type of salvation where you are taken out of a burning building and placed in a safe spot where you can live joyfully for all eternity, it is the type of salvation where you escape from a crippling additiction. If you do not participate in this salvation, you will remain an addict for all eternity. Participation is absolutely essential, and the more you resist the destruction of the sin in your soul, the worse your eternal existence will be.
@@SimpleAmadeus yes, the christian faith is an action-oriented one rather than "pure belief". you are absolutely right, those two are interlinked. and still, you can not EARN your salvation through works. by participating you display your loyal faithful love and graceful gratitude towards God for being saved through jesus, and align your inner compass to the highest. i believe doing good as a redemptive healing/cleansing and shielding the soul from sin! thank you for sparking that thought-chain in my mind, bless you brother!
I can't help but wonder if the tearing of the veil in the temple at the crucifixion had an impact on how the ladder of hierarchy works? I know it is often used in protestant theology for the disollussion of church hierarchy, I'm not sure how to interpret it otherwise. Thoughts?
Joshua Christy I always saw the tearing of the veil, where only one man could approach God one day a year, to opening the Presence of God to all of us at all times.
At all levels of the metaphorical ladder , God is with you and aids you. To use the metaphor Jonathan uses - the boss of the company takes time to guide , aid and help the worker no matter how low in the ladder he is .Still the ladder is not dissolved nor is it arbitrary. The most High carries us upward if we allow it - upward where? Upward in the hierarchy , it is not all leveled but you will get aid to grow up at all levels. A better metaphor is that of a family : the Father will discuss and demand more from His grown up sons and allow greater freedom, but even if one is metaphorically a retarded child that still cannot walk well beyond his toddler years , no one will ever give up on him . The Father is not a boss but a Father that will give Love and support unconditionally but also the slow to grow child must learn and understand what he currently is so as to move on to the next stage of development - he cannot shout himself to walking by lying to reality no matter how loved he is . Christ Demonstrated that at all levels you are taken care off and shown the next step forward with infinite patience and care - not that there are no steps to take but that there are easy if we listen to the direct guidance we receive . Church Hierarchy begun as a way for the to take care of the . The Mysteries and Rituals are all still effective in doing that but the direct loving relations first Christians build in their communities have been corrupted by quantity (in most places).
There are some things I would disagree with him on for certain, but I think the basic structure of his vision of the world is accurate, and he was also a very holy man himself worthy of sainthood.
There are some things in his Soul After Death that he admits are speculation, and quite honestly, he tried to tackle some extremely difficult things in that book. Yes, overall though, he was quite insightful about what is happening to modern man.
Jonathan Pageau toll houses maybe? But I agree he’s worthy of sainthood. I’m blessed to be able to visit the monastery he founded in Plantina. I went there when I was almost certain I would become a catechumen and that experience sealed the deal. It’s a very holy place.
nice and it would be a good explanation if it corresponded to reality. I only encountered few hierarchies where position has been held due to the persons competence. More often than not it people were at the position due to their connections, luck, acting certain way, power games and so on. Competence is rare and mostly found among professions than hierarchies in general. Change my mind haha
Thanks for the insights Jonathan! That text of the tithe looks like the opposite of 1 Samuel 3: "Speak, Lord, for your servant hears". Still a question though: i know it is common language, and I say it too sometimes, but why did you use the phrase 'I swear'? Isn't that against Jesus saying of Jesus in Matthew 5:34? Personally I don't think it's that bad, but speaking of taking holiness down... I noticed it because when I was a child I got hit by my parents when I said something like that. Maybe too orthodox, so, don't take it too seriously, I'm just curious;)
This is crucial. The supposedly Christian path that Pageau claims mediates between static top-down hierarchy and revolutionary emergent fluidity, or whatever terms you wish to use, he claims is exemplified in his example of a nun who knows a priest is keeping prostitutes and who barges into his room while he's engaged with one and kneels before him saying she wishes to confess her sins. While amusing, and while the spirit is correct - pointing out the corruption of authorities without directly revolting, the specific form is (at least in our current historical context I will defend) very wrong, for one in that it avoids confronting the issue entirely but more importantly is disingenuous by **pretending** this person still holds special moral authority as though it were a confer-able substance immune to corrosion or enhancement through behavior (a literalizing of e.g. anointing oil or a lawful signature as magic or some nonsense). Furthermore, the illusion is up; few in the modern world are going to pretend that purely inherited authority is legitimate, and essentially no one truly believes it. There's no going back on this point. Authority is participatory and transjective just like everything else. While I obviously agree that the pure critique of postmodernism misses the purpose of critique (reform, not total dissolution) and the necessity of (some form of) hierarchy and authority (what I like to call contextual competence, further polishing a piece of Jordan Peterson terminology I respect the choice of), critique is as inevitable and necessary as hierarchy because corruption (i.e. sin) is inevitable, as Jonathan acknowledges. However, I think the crucial point here is that this critique needs to be made with open clarity, clear transparency, which is entirely compatible with respect for the authority / sanctity of a given position itself, but acknowledges the real emergent good of modern self-consciousness and authenticity which calls out corruption directly and understands social imaginaries as contextual rather than eternal and inevitable, which they clearly are, and anyone who claims they've got a lock on the best format is deluded, as Pageau himself acknowledges regarding the solution to the current breakdown not being political, which should flow from more spiritual principles, and his gentle (how "nice") admonitions of Neoreactionary monarchist LARPers in his orbit. Admittedly the proper form of critique that takes into account the modern good of radical honesty requires right-hemisphere finesse and grace so as not to sully the deserved reverence of the position of authority itself that is being participated in and currently corrupted, but I maintain it is possible. Now, arguably a more "feminine" (using Pageau's language) behind-the-scenes, 1-on-1 talk with the corrupt authority may be the best first step, but even here, unlike the nun in the example, one can be direct and still respect the position of authority itself. And fine, maybe even before this act one can simply encourage the good in that individual as the first and primary attempt; it depends on the severity of the corruption I'd guess. But there is no need for disingenuousness. The action of the nun in his example was admirable and quite probably the best possible thing she could do in her historical situation and context, but in our era is a kind of dishonesty, certainly it is disingenuous, and advocating this kind of critique as the best or only admissable kind I think collaborates at a deep level (unsurprisingly) with a strand of reactionary fideism Pageau is still mired in *in spite* of his passionate Christian vision, which to be honest is I think the thin but strong line holding him back from fascistic NRx rhetoric. This he exemplified in a Q&A, where he disengenuously waffled and gave a psuedo pass to the Orthodox dogma about the age of the planet despite clearly knowing it to be false in the sense meant by the dogma and the questioner. This kind of disingenuousness is insidious; it's an acid that eats away at the long-term resiliency of the religious authority he so privileges in apparent favor of a short-term attempted save. It is perhaps worst of all in Eastern Orthodoxy actually (though I'm no expert) insofar as it's even seemingly codified in the pithy exhortation / creed to "cover thy father's nakedness" (referring to Noah as symbolic of [especially patriarchal and religious] authority), a creed that was weaponized by a blatantly polemical trolling infernalist mocking Fr. Adrian Kimmel with the phrase after claiming he was a heretic or some such and directly challenging his authority and mocking him. Mocking, I'm unsure of the value of even in the most seemingly appropriate of times (e.g. Trump), but absolutely in a case where the mocked party showed nothing but good faith and the engagement was one on one. That is unjustifiable. Similarly this same kind of disingenuousness and indifference to the truth was exemplified by a Traditionalist acquantaince toward a less dogmatic Christian acquantaince regarding the historical analysis of sacred texts (containing "revealed" doctrines), with the latter desiring to engage with them to get as close to the truth of what occurred as possible with all the tools available, in this context focusing on the historical method, and the former advocating he / anyone *"bracket"* such historical / methodological questions that raise any doubt on the authority of (only key?) religious dogma(s) (for the sake of one's salvation, presumably?). This is perhaps the most insidious example of all, as a form in a vacuum, because it explicitly privileges fideistic, voluntaristic "belief" (whatever that is, ask Vervaeke to help you) over the desire for and commitment to truth (including the gradient of plausibility [matching degree of likelihood to strength of evidence, contra the Traditionalist's Pascalian spiritual instrumentalism], in my view, which admittedly supposedly began with Locke, but genealogical fallacy and all). Furthermore, even if you're going to claim this sort of 'submission to authority' is scriptural and properly Christian, you still rest on shaky grounds. The NT is anti-legalistic for good reason in favor of action based in the holy spirit and in charity / agape, as Pageau seems almost constantly pleasantly (thankfully) surprised at, as if it's so weird, and when Paul in e.g. Romans 13:1 speaks of submitting to governmental authorities the better translation is something like "orderly arranged under" which is perfectly compatible with virtuous, forthright, respectful truth-telling to authorities, and I still think things like civil disobedience are utterly not just compatible with but required by Christian virtue in many scenarios (esp regarding violence, ect.)
I agree when it comes to the hierarchy in the church and the cosmos but political hierarchy in our world is another matter. Due to the fall hierarchy in our world has a tendency twords abuse and power grabbing. It becomes curupt and vampiric. That's why I sympathise with leftist anarchism. It seeks to flatten as much hierarchy as is practical, I think some hierarchy is good and necessary but it needs to be kept in check by domocratic institutions.
Dan Skiver That's like saying that Heaven is put to the test because 1/3 of the angels disagree with the King. Guess what, they got kicked out. Just like the Orthodox and the Protestants got kicked out. Now on the greater scale of things, planetary level, it is still evident. Because of things like BC/AD for the INTERNATIONAL calendar. Or things like the fact that Jesus is the most known and influential personality in all of human history. That the Catholic Church is a living relic, etc. Once upon a time the Catholic Church and the State were one and the same. It is still apostolic tradition that separation of Church and State is ultimately diabolical. Once we get opportunities going, we'll reestablish Christendom.
If you have a fluid hierarchy then "normal" cannot simultaneously be normative because of the need for diversity, complexity, specialization and indeed hierarchy. Normal as normative only works in a static society where roles are preordained essentially from birth, because normative normalcy is contextualized by that person's place in the hierarchy, thus avoiding competition via Girardian mimesis. But in a fluid hierarchy (e.g. of meritocracy, perhaps its ideal form), normalcy cannot be normative in a univocal sense / manner because this would lead to a mimetic contagion and to the war of all against all (envy rivalry, ect.). Thus the modern ethic of authenticity is a replacement / substitute for the traditional notion of preordained social role, in that it affords niche differentiation in order to increase group resiliency and preventing mimetic rivalry. The downside / danger / vulnerability of the traditional solution is that it locks people into roles, to a degree, that may be quite unsuited for their temperament, innate and acquired skills, context, ect., thus leading to inefficiency and potentially revolutionary resentment if things become too rigid. The downside / danger / vulnerability of the modern ethic of authenticity (see Charles Taylor) is that the more internally sourced locus of purpose can lead to relativism and atomism when the society / environment furnishes these distortions of the real moral power of the ethic (see Taylor on the malaise of modernity (in research notes) for how this plays out Essentially, the point / hypothesis is that you can't have a normativity of normalcy (except in a much more broad, baseline sense) in a fluid hierarchy. While you can have one in a static / inherited hierarchy (remember these are all gradients), this mode of society is I think both no longer viable for us as a social imaginary after the development of modern self-consciousness (see Linda Zabzebski on humanity's two great ideas [understanding the world and understanding the self] and Charles Taylor on ratchet points of history and the moral good of the ethic of authenticity in modern individualism) and is inferior to a fluid hierarchy for the same reasons, treating people like children to be wacked with sticks from birth based on narratives wedded to always partly arbitrary institutional power, whereas a fluid (meritocratic) hierarchy models natural selection and all life, has greater potential for goodness, treats people with greater dignity and Christian charity, allows for emergence, is more honest and humble about the inherited arbitrariness of power and authority and takes account of the increased knowledge humanity has gained through history. Granted it may be more risky in certain respects but for all the above reasons it is I believe deeply the higher path that more fully participates in the good.)
Hi Jonathan, the saints in the OT and the NT are ones "set apart", holy not in themselves but because God has set them apart for His purposes e.g. to do good works. We Christians, as the "priesthood of believers", are all saints. Saints who have gone before are not somehow "higher" in the hierarchy, nor are the angels. Angels are servants of the saints. Neither saints nor angels are intermediaries between us and God, so we do not pray to them or worship them. I DO share your contempt for the "Jesus is my buddy" or worse attempts to make Jesus accessible.
Philippa Westerman that's not what hes was saying. He didn't say the saints were created better than anyone else. They are humans. He said in terms of the hierarchy they have attained more than we have, understood God and heaven and all of it in ways we haven't yet and therefore are higher on the hierarchy than we are and we have to strive to be better ourselves to rise up the hierarchy. Hierarchy isn't a structure imposed on us that never changes. God didn't make some people better than others etc (I guess some sects would argue that but according to orthodox christianity we all have that potential). That's exactly his critique of the post-moderns, they believe it is a rigid imposition. Those above are always above and oppressing and you cannot change your station in life etc. But that's not what a hierarchy is. As Jonathan explains, in any good hierarchy you can see a path to becoming better. You can rise too. The busboy can one day manage the whole restaurant. A person can grow closer to understanding God or experiencing truth and become more saintly. Everyone uses hierarchy whether they want to or not. Children impose hierarchy in their play. It's just human nature. It's not some gnostic structure that you discover where you are and that's it. It's a pattern that humans can recognize. We revere saints because they've accomplished more. That's it. As Catholics, We talk to them but we don't worship them. That is a misconception. We understand that they are alive and they care and ask for their prayers because it says in the Bible to join your prayers with others. God wants to hear from everybody. That conversation doesn't end when we die. Saints are people we can talk to and ask for prayers or help undergoing and understanding a certain problem or to be a special inspiration to us to endure as they did. They aren't higher beings and they aren't worshipped. And the practice of speaking with them isn't required of anyone so even a catholic doesn't have to ever pray to Mary or anyone else and that's perfectly ok. Just hope that clears that up because it's a very common misconception.
sympathize with your negative reaction to the "my good buddy" conception of God. I wonder if it is a religious hazard for southern good ole boys like me to fall into this. Maybe not. As far Hierarchies I wonder if this order of existence is to be valued for itself. If there is no clear path to the "Apex" is this a bad thing? A bad thing in and of itself? My big worry about stressing the linear structure is that people, their functions, their Fit within the system can be used to assign values of worth, value and dignity like so many gold stars. Or do just Losers worry about such things? If there is anything I know about God it is that He can do things anyway He wants. Subjects and Objects: how he deals with a person goes well beyond structures we must live in.
Pageau like his mate Peterson considers himself to be a "teacher" on a mission to save the world, and conserve the patriarchal structures they are so fond of, while filling up their pockets in the process. Therefore the axiomatic premise of "hierarchies" is an easier notion to inculcate on the "not so smart" audience they cater for, in reality "God is a circle whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere."
For those who want to see the image of the yearly Catholic tithe. It actually says:
"Say, Jesus..." then underneath "your personal assistant is always listening"
www.diocesemontreal.org/actualite/actualite/lecteur-actualites/items/resultats-preleminaires-de-la-collecte-annuelle.html
I liked your explanation of how that ladder of saints and angels helps us to perceive the unfathomable highness of God. Always above and beyond.
So it Jesus as Siri? That's... Very troubling.
I read it as that I am a mindless, drone-ish personal asisstant of Jesus. Which is at least troubling as well. And gives guys like Harris something to chew on :-D
This just gives how divorced and secularized from tradition the modern Christians have become.
i read it that way too. it seems like an attempt to get people's attention by feeding candy to the ego and its dreams. like: "so, how do we reach out to the young people? we have to compete with this technology.... any ideas?"
There is no generic hierarchy, and this will become even more apparent in the digital age. There are a multitude of competence hierarchies depending on the context / arena. This was even the case in the ancient world. The old were wiser, the young more athletic. Covering these natural hierarchies over with one of a generalized dogma (e.g. divine right of kings, noble blood) may have been a pragmatic lie (at best a necessary evil) but that time seems to be coming to a close, and this should be celebrated. medium.com/deep-code/the-future-of-organization-b26219e5fc95
How do you propose the monarchy you recently mentioned you view as the best form of government work (as in, who would be chosen as the monarch, and how would rule be passed on? By blood again? How do you think the gargantuan problems of nepotism, the corruption of power, and incompetence via lack of skill / training / meritocracy would be resolved? Or do you think there's simply a need for a symbolic but largely potentless figurehead like in the UK and Japan? That I can understand more)
Of course, the spiritual hierarchy absolutely should have the transcendent / sacred / God as highest, followed by love and the good, true and beautiful (I'm partial to Scheler's pyramid of values here).
Phenomenologically speaking, the Earth is a pyramid.
Josh the Mover ✓ : as well as the heavens :)
Pyramid Earth Theory. Look it up.
P3rformula lol yes I'm a Pyramid Earther
I too am a Tri-earther
Love the ending. Got a good laugh out of me there.
I'm not sure I'd consider myself a christian, which I hope doesn't automatically render me profane, but I appreciate your videos, intellect and insight. Subbed.
I have been told that I'm not a Christian since I was young by other people. I declare that I am. I don't think everyone has the same idea of what it means to be a Christian. If we can keep seeing the good in each other and supporting the best of each other we are building God's kingdom. From what you've said here, I would like more people around like you.
I imagine if your participate in the Christian stories, then you are a Christian (the stories of the Bible)
“An actual real religious man doesn’t belong to any religion” - Me
Are u orthodox yet lol
Love these short answers! Wonderful explanation of the saints.
“Your personal assistant is available.” Wow.......no doubt sympathy for Sam Harris in that moment.
Oh man, I remember seeing that ad...talk about an inversion of values...
When I'd just become a Christian, Protestant, about three years ago, one of the things I was curious about was the place of the Law. When I brought this up, their response was very worried but also a bit confused. They agreed with my intuition that, even if the Law isn't binding on us anymore, wouldn't it still be good to follow? They didn't quite tell me that I shouldn't explore it, but one thing I was cautioned against was to be careful that I wouldn't consider myself better than other Christians.
I get that pride is a sin, but something about this has always seemed off to me. It's not merely a warning against pride, something about it suggests that the idea of one Christian being higher than another is in itself wrong. But is it really? This concept of hierarchy described here, and that the saints are "higher Christians" than I am, I notice it's really touching the core of this matter. Surely if there's such a thing as absolute right and wrong, then there must also be better and worse. I think it's extremely dangerous to be so scared of pride that you would reject the idea of becoming a better Christian. Equating righteousness to pride, thereby making it a sin, is thoroughly confused.
The idea of climbing a hierarchy of righteousness sounds exciting to me. The sola fide alternative where Jesus and I are effectively equals already and all I have to do is whatever I want, just wearing His righteousness to pass through judgement and then instantly be holy somehow, not only seems counterintuitive, but also sounds nearly as pointless as the nihilist atheism that I came from. Why even do anything, if nothing I do can ever be remotely adequate, but I will still get a perfect grade at the end of it? What point is there in continuing my sinful life if all it does is add to the penalty that Jesus must endure? Why not just die immediately and be holy so I can stop hurting Him? The more I think about it, the more I conclude that sola fide just doesn't add up.
I think the only reason most Protestants accept it is because they actually enjoy their activities in this world of sin somehow, but I don't. I turned to Christ because there's nothing here for me in this world. Giving my life to Christ was a reasonably easy choice, since I didn't want the life anymore anyway. Having to continue the life feels like a burden that I'm willing to endure for Christ. But if they then tell me that actually nothing I contribute actually matters and that I just have to enjoy the ride, feels like a cruel joke.
All I want is just one valid reason to remain in this ever collapsing world of sin and death. Just one. The fact that Orthodoxy states that what I do actually makes a difference in my own eternal life, and then logically also for others, in this interconnected hierarchy, is a game changer for me.
PS: I didn't get very far on the topic of the Law. Once I realized that a massive amount of it is not even possible for non-Israelites, and that most of the rest is heavily debated within Protestantism, I let it rest for the time being. I'm curious what the Orthodox position about it is.
You are raising some excellent points there. I think if you read about both the Catholic and Orthodox saints you will have great benefit. Also reading the theology of saints who were having direct experiences of God whilst writing the theology would be even better.
As fas as i understand, yes, you are saved "simply" by truly believing (and acting) in christ.
but do you just want to be saved or do you want to participate in the conscious expanding creation project of God, even as a small tiny limited human as you are. That doesnt mean forcing others to convert, rather leading by example by being and doing good so others can become inspired. From my own experience, the more you try to become "holy" (as far as thats humanly possible) and not sin, the closer and stronger and more vividly intimate your relationship with God becomes. Blessings 🙏
@@code-cans Hi there. Thank you for your response. I know quite clearly, by now, that what you describe when you say "do you just want to be saved" is not a valid concept, because in the rest of the sentence you speak of it as something different from participating. Participation and salvation are the same thing. This isn't a type of salvation where you are taken out of a burning building and placed in a safe spot where you can live joyfully for all eternity, it is the type of salvation where you escape from a crippling additiction. If you do not participate in this salvation, you will remain an addict for all eternity. Participation is absolutely essential, and the more you resist the destruction of the sin in your soul, the worse your eternal existence will be.
@@SimpleAmadeus yes, the christian faith is an action-oriented one rather than "pure belief". you are absolutely right, those two are interlinked.
and still, you can not EARN your salvation through works. by participating you display your loyal faithful love and graceful gratitude towards God for being saved through jesus, and align your inner compass to the highest. i believe doing good as a redemptive healing/cleansing and shielding the soul from sin! thank you for sparking that thought-chain in my mind, bless you brother!
@@code-cans May the Lord guide your way, friend. Have a great day, and an excellent life.
Great answer, Jonathan. Thanks!
Knowing our place in the world and not been overly familiar with God.
Here after most recent Jordan Peterson mention on JRE.
I appreciate your insight regarding hierarchy. Thanks for sharing!
Jonathan is there any chance you could do a video on the mysteries?
Didn’t the poster mean that the believer was the personal assistant of Christ? As opposed to portraying Christ as the assistant, I mean.
last line - hilarious :D
the hierarchy in family, mother and father under christ, children under parents, to obey.
the greatest among you will be your servant.
I can't help but wonder if the tearing of the veil in the temple at the crucifixion had an impact on how the ladder of hierarchy works? I know it is often used in protestant theology for the disollussion of church hierarchy, I'm not sure how to interpret it otherwise. Thoughts?
Joshua Christy
I always saw the tearing of the veil, where only one man could approach God one day a year, to opening the Presence of God to all of us at all times.
At all levels of the metaphorical ladder , God is with you and aids you.
To use the metaphor Jonathan uses - the boss of the company takes time to guide , aid and help the worker no matter how low in the ladder he is .Still the ladder is not dissolved nor is it arbitrary.
The most High carries us upward if we allow it - upward where? Upward in the hierarchy , it is not all leveled but you will get aid to grow up at all levels.
A better metaphor is that of a family : the Father will discuss and demand more from His grown up sons and allow greater freedom, but even if one is metaphorically a retarded child that still cannot walk well beyond his toddler years , no one will ever give up on him .
The Father is not a boss but a Father that will give Love and support unconditionally but also the slow to grow child must learn and understand what he currently is so as to move on to the next stage of development - he cannot shout himself to walking by lying to reality no matter how loved he is .
Christ Demonstrated that at all levels you are taken care off and shown the next step forward with infinite patience and care - not that there are no steps to take but that there are easy if we listen to the direct guidance we receive .
Church Hierarchy begun as a way for the to take care of the .
The Mysteries and Rituals are all still effective in doing that but the direct loving relations first Christians build in their communities have been corrupted by quantity (in most places).
One proceeds another and the following can't exist otherwise.
Structurally I think this is hierarchy of time. The unfolding.
Not sure I understood, that story you shared at the end...... could you explain for me please?
They were making Christ to be like Siri or Alexa.
Ohhhhhhh, i got confused. I thought the Catholics were referring to THEMSELVES as personal assistants to Jesus.
Thanks for the clarification!
This all depends on what kind of Hierarchy.
Hey Jonathan, what’s your opinion of Father Seraphim Rose?
There are some things I would disagree with him on for certain, but I think the basic structure of his vision of the world is accurate, and he was also a very holy man himself worthy of sainthood.
There are some things in his Soul After Death that he admits are speculation, and quite honestly, he tried to tackle some extremely difficult things in that book. Yes, overall though, he was quite insightful about what is happening to modern man.
Jonathan Pageau toll houses maybe? But I agree he’s worthy of sainthood. I’m blessed to be able to visit the monastery he founded in Plantina. I went there when I was almost certain I would become a catechumen and that experience sealed the deal. It’s a very holy place.
What is the image in the title?
nice and it would be a good explanation if it corresponded to reality. I only encountered few hierarchies where position has been held due to the persons competence. More often than not it people were at the position due to their connections, luck, acting certain way, power games and so on. Competence is rare and mostly found among professions than hierarchies in general. Change my mind haha
Thanks for the insights Jonathan! That text of the tithe looks like the opposite of 1 Samuel 3: "Speak, Lord, for your servant hears".
Still a question though: i know it is common language, and I say it too sometimes, but why did you use the phrase 'I swear'? Isn't that against Jesus saying of Jesus in Matthew 5:34? Personally I don't think it's that bad, but speaking of taking holiness down... I noticed it because when I was a child I got hit by my parents when I said something like that. Maybe too orthodox, so, don't take it too seriously, I'm just curious;)
💜
This is crucial. The supposedly Christian path that Pageau claims mediates between static top-down hierarchy and revolutionary emergent fluidity, or whatever terms you wish to use, he claims is exemplified in his example of a nun who knows a priest is keeping prostitutes and who barges into his room while he's engaged with one and kneels before him saying she wishes to confess her sins. While amusing, and while the spirit is correct - pointing out the corruption of authorities without directly revolting, the specific form is (at least in our current historical context I will defend) very wrong, for one in that it avoids confronting the issue entirely but more importantly is disingenuous by **pretending** this person still holds special moral authority as though it were a confer-able substance immune to corrosion or enhancement through behavior (a literalizing of e.g. anointing oil or a lawful signature as magic or some nonsense). Furthermore, the illusion is up; few in the modern world are going to pretend that purely inherited authority is legitimate, and essentially no one truly believes it. There's no going back on this point. Authority is participatory and transjective just like everything else. While I obviously agree that the pure critique of postmodernism misses the purpose of critique (reform, not total dissolution) and the necessity of (some form of) hierarchy and authority (what I like to call contextual competence, further polishing a piece of Jordan Peterson terminology I respect the choice of), critique is as inevitable and necessary as hierarchy because corruption (i.e. sin) is inevitable, as Jonathan acknowledges. However, I think the crucial point here is that this critique needs to be made with open clarity, clear transparency, which is entirely compatible with respect for the authority / sanctity of a given position itself, but acknowledges the real emergent good of modern self-consciousness and authenticity which calls out corruption directly and understands social imaginaries as contextual rather than eternal and inevitable, which they clearly are, and anyone who claims they've got a lock on the best format is deluded, as Pageau himself acknowledges regarding the solution to the current breakdown not being political, which should flow from more spiritual principles, and his gentle (how "nice") admonitions of Neoreactionary monarchist LARPers in his orbit. Admittedly the proper form of critique that takes into account the modern good of radical honesty requires right-hemisphere finesse and grace so as not to sully the deserved reverence of the position of authority itself that is being participated in and currently corrupted, but I maintain it is possible. Now, arguably a more "feminine" (using Pageau's language) behind-the-scenes, 1-on-1 talk with the corrupt authority may be the best first step, but even here, unlike the nun in the example, one can be direct and still respect the position of authority itself. And fine, maybe even before this act one can simply encourage the good in that individual as the first and primary attempt; it depends on the severity of the corruption I'd guess. But there is no need for disingenuousness. The action of the nun in his example was admirable and quite probably the best possible thing she could do in her historical situation and context, but in our era is a kind of dishonesty, certainly it is disingenuous, and advocating this kind of critique as the best or only admissable kind I think collaborates at a deep level (unsurprisingly) with a strand of reactionary fideism Pageau is still mired in *in spite* of his passionate Christian vision, which to be honest is I think the thin but strong line holding him back from fascistic NRx rhetoric. This he exemplified in a Q&A, where he disengenuously waffled and gave a psuedo pass to the Orthodox dogma about the age of the planet despite clearly knowing it to be false in the sense meant by the dogma and the questioner. This kind of disingenuousness is insidious; it's an acid that eats away at the long-term resiliency of the religious authority he so privileges in apparent favor of a short-term attempted save. It is perhaps worst of all in Eastern Orthodoxy actually (though I'm no expert) insofar as it's even seemingly codified in the pithy exhortation / creed to "cover thy father's nakedness" (referring to Noah as symbolic of [especially patriarchal and religious] authority), a creed that was weaponized by a blatantly polemical trolling infernalist mocking Fr. Adrian Kimmel with the phrase after claiming he was a heretic or some such and directly challenging his authority and mocking him. Mocking, I'm unsure of the value of even in the most seemingly appropriate of times (e.g. Trump), but absolutely in a case where the mocked party showed nothing but good faith and the engagement was one on one. That is unjustifiable. Similarly this same kind of disingenuousness and indifference to the truth was exemplified by a Traditionalist acquantaince toward a less dogmatic Christian acquantaince regarding the historical analysis of sacred texts (containing "revealed" doctrines), with the latter desiring to engage with them to get as close to the truth of what occurred as possible with all the tools available, in this context focusing on the historical method, and the former advocating he / anyone *"bracket"* such historical / methodological questions that raise any doubt on the authority of (only key?) religious dogma(s) (for the sake of one's salvation, presumably?). This is perhaps the most insidious example of all, as a form in a vacuum, because it explicitly privileges fideistic, voluntaristic "belief" (whatever that is, ask Vervaeke to help you) over the desire for and commitment to truth (including the gradient of plausibility [matching degree of likelihood to strength of evidence, contra the Traditionalist's Pascalian spiritual instrumentalism], in my view, which admittedly supposedly began with Locke, but genealogical fallacy and all). Furthermore, even if you're going to claim this sort of 'submission to authority' is scriptural and properly Christian, you still rest on shaky grounds. The NT is anti-legalistic for good reason in favor of action based in the holy spirit and in charity / agape, as Pageau seems almost constantly pleasantly (thankfully) surprised at, as if it's so weird, and when Paul in e.g. Romans 13:1 speaks of submitting to governmental authorities the better translation is something like "orderly arranged under" which is perfectly compatible with virtuous, forthright, respectful truth-telling to authorities, and I still think things like civil disobedience are utterly not just compatible with but required by Christian virtue in many scenarios (esp regarding violence, ect.)
What is my Symbol?
I agree when it comes to the hierarchy in the church and the cosmos but political hierarchy in our world is another matter. Due to the fall hierarchy in our world has a tendency twords abuse and power grabbing. It becomes curupt and vampiric. That's why I sympathise with leftist anarchism. It seeks to flatten as much hierarchy as is practical, I think some hierarchy is good and necessary but it needs to be kept in check by domocratic institutions.
How should the governed find Jesus narrow path in the matrix of possibilities, which is his kingdom. To me this is the IS/OUGHT problem.
Catholic Church, case closed.
Destynation Y - If that was objectively true we wouldn't have so many religions and such large secular governments.
Dan Skiver
That's like saying that Heaven is put to the test because 1/3 of the angels disagree with the King.
Guess what, they got kicked out. Just like the Orthodox and the Protestants got kicked out.
Now on the greater scale of things, planetary level, it is still evident. Because of things like BC/AD for the INTERNATIONAL calendar.
Or things like the fact that Jesus is the most known and influential personality in all of human history.
That the Catholic Church is a living relic, etc.
Once upon a time the Catholic Church and the State were one and the same. It is still apostolic tradition that separation of Church and State is ultimately diabolical.
Once we get opportunities going, we'll reestablish Christendom.
If you have a fluid hierarchy then "normal" cannot simultaneously be normative because of the need for diversity, complexity, specialization and indeed hierarchy. Normal as normative only works in a static society where roles are preordained essentially from birth, because normative normalcy is contextualized by that person's place in the hierarchy, thus avoiding competition via Girardian mimesis. But in a fluid hierarchy (e.g. of meritocracy, perhaps its ideal form), normalcy cannot be normative in a univocal sense / manner because this would lead to a mimetic contagion and to the war of all against all (envy rivalry, ect.). Thus the modern ethic of authenticity is a replacement / substitute for the traditional notion of preordained social role, in that it affords niche differentiation in order to increase group resiliency and preventing mimetic rivalry. The downside / danger / vulnerability of the traditional solution is that it locks people into roles, to a degree, that may be quite unsuited for their temperament, innate and acquired skills, context, ect., thus leading to inefficiency and potentially revolutionary resentment if things become too rigid. The downside / danger / vulnerability of the modern ethic of authenticity (see Charles Taylor) is that the more internally sourced locus of purpose can lead to relativism and atomism when the society / environment furnishes these distortions of the real moral power of the ethic (see Taylor on the malaise of modernity (in research notes) for how this plays out
Essentially, the point / hypothesis is that you can't have a normativity of normalcy (except in a much more broad, baseline sense) in a fluid hierarchy. While you can have one in a static / inherited hierarchy (remember these are all gradients), this mode of society is I think both no longer viable for us as a social imaginary after the development of modern self-consciousness (see Linda Zabzebski on humanity's two great ideas [understanding the world and understanding the self] and Charles Taylor on ratchet points of history and the moral good of the ethic of authenticity in modern individualism) and is inferior to a fluid hierarchy for the same reasons, treating people like children to be wacked with sticks from birth based on narratives wedded to always partly arbitrary institutional power, whereas a fluid (meritocratic) hierarchy models natural selection and all life, has greater potential for goodness, treats people with greater dignity and Christian charity, allows for emergence, is more honest and humble about the inherited arbitrariness of power and authority and takes account of the increased knowledge humanity has gained through history. Granted it may be more risky in certain respects but for all the above reasons it is I believe deeply the higher path that more fully participates in the good.)
Is jonathan a christian?
Yes, Eastern Orthodox.
So he’s agnostic, but he can’t accept it ;)
This reminds me of Lord of the Rings nerds talking and philosophizing about their favorite books.
Hi Jonathan, the saints in the OT and the NT are ones "set apart", holy not in themselves but because God has set them apart for His purposes e.g. to do good works. We Christians, as the "priesthood of believers", are all saints. Saints who have gone before are not somehow "higher" in the hierarchy, nor are the angels. Angels are servants of the saints. Neither saints nor angels are intermediaries between us and God, so we do not pray to them or worship them.
I DO share your contempt for the "Jesus is my buddy" or worse attempts to make Jesus accessible.
Philippa Westerman that's not what hes was saying. He didn't say the saints were created better than anyone else. They are humans. He said in terms of the hierarchy they have attained more than we have, understood God and heaven and all of it in ways we haven't yet and therefore are higher on the hierarchy than we are and we have to strive to be better ourselves to rise up the hierarchy. Hierarchy isn't a structure imposed on us that never changes. God didn't make some people better than others etc (I guess some sects would argue that but according to orthodox christianity we all have that potential). That's exactly his critique of the post-moderns, they believe it is a rigid imposition. Those above are always above and oppressing and you cannot change your station in life etc. But that's not what a hierarchy is. As Jonathan explains, in any good hierarchy you can see a path to becoming better. You can rise too. The busboy can one day manage the whole restaurant. A person can grow closer to understanding God or experiencing truth and become more saintly. Everyone uses hierarchy whether they want to or not. Children impose hierarchy in their play. It's just human nature. It's not some gnostic structure that you discover where you are and that's it. It's a pattern that humans can recognize. We revere saints because they've accomplished more. That's it. As Catholics, We talk to them but we don't worship them. That is a misconception. We understand that they are alive and they care and ask for their prayers because it says in the Bible to join your prayers with others. God wants to hear from everybody. That conversation doesn't end when we die. Saints are people we can talk to and ask for prayers or help undergoing and understanding a certain problem or to be a special inspiration to us to endure as they did. They aren't higher beings and they aren't worshipped. And the practice of speaking with them isn't required of anyone so even a catholic doesn't have to ever pray to Mary or anyone else and that's perfectly ok. Just hope that clears that up because it's a very common misconception.
sympathize with your negative reaction to the "my good buddy" conception of God. I wonder if it is a religious hazard for southern good ole boys like me to fall into this. Maybe not. As far Hierarchies I wonder if this order of existence is to be valued for itself. If there is no clear path to the "Apex" is this a bad thing? A bad thing in and of itself? My big worry about stressing the linear structure is that people, their functions, their Fit within the system can be used to assign values of worth, value and dignity like so many gold stars. Or do just Losers worry about such things? If there is anything I know about God it is that He can do things anyway He wants. Subjects and Objects: how he deals with a person goes well beyond structures we must live in.
Pageau like his mate Peterson considers himself to be a "teacher" on a mission to save the world, and conserve the patriarchal structures they are so fond of, while filling up their pockets in the process.
Therefore the axiomatic premise of "hierarchies" is an easier notion to inculcate on the "not so smart" audience they cater for, in reality "God is a circle whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere."
I clicked to hear you say "Heyrarchy"...and then you Americanized it. Faux-pas.