Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Croix de Fer on April 03, 2013, 05:32:36 PM
-
-
Leave it to Brother Nathanael, who grew up Jєωιѕн, to explain that
the 'gαy agenda' is for the goys, and the Regime is for the Jews.
-
WARNING: PLEASE REMOVE LINK:
Watched for 5 seconds, then they show disgusting picture of 2 aberrosɛҳuąƖ men kissing. DISCONNECTED!
Don't know who this "Brother" is but, he is not right in the head if he posts a scandalous picture like that, and that is only 5 seconds that I saw!
-
bowler, if that's all it takes for you I guess you had better stay away from
Los Angeles. Especially Hollywood. And don't even THINK about West
Hollywood.
That image lasts for about 1 second and that's all there is. The rest of
the video is void of such things. I agree it was too much and leaves a bad
taste ----------- uh, it's not good form. But the rest of it was quite tolerable.
The bottom line ----------- uh, in the final analysis --------- uh, the way
I'd like to think of this is, there is something about Jews that is always
obsessed with sex. They are utterly consumed by it. So I really think
that this "Brother Nathanael" is onto something ----------- uh, he's
not making out -------------- uh, it's not contrived.
Do you know what he means by "goys," bowler? I know, you didn't watch it
long enough to get to that part -- it's at the end. He said that the fag agenda,
the queer revolution, the making public of the Sin of Sodom is for the goys.
And the Regime is for the Jews. Do you understand that? I think he may
be quite correct. It's a piece of the puzzle that's conspicuously missing
in the MSM and your local "parish."
-
bowler, if that's all it takes for you I guess you had better stay away from
Los Angeles. Especially Hollywood.
I know more about the aberrosɛҳuąƖ and have seen more than everyone on this forum put together, and I say, I don't need to see that garbage. Until that scene is removed, the entire posting is garbage. Jews or no Jews!
Get that garbage off!
I'm surprised that anyone on this forum is fighting me on this.
-
The presentation of the information makes light of the topic, while the presenter gets love from both those he is giving the information to and those on the other side. It is a win-win situation for the presenter. They may be sending the same love/spiritual goods sent from those opposed to one of their own, who can switch sides with ease and send your own love and admiration you built up in him to be used later on against those who sent. (The last sentence is deliberately written in a way that only a few will understand) Do you want names in history of people who worked for both sides, rising in power of some sorts, only to hurt those under him, those very people who gave him some spiritual goods.
These characters are like a presidential campaign, don't fall for sending checks to some candidate or sending your willed efforts only to be let down later.
Imagine St. Paul reading blogs of the kind.
-
Will the three people who thumbed me down on my WARNING posting be so kind as to tell everyone here why they did so? What exactly is wrong with what I wrote?
-
That gross pic :barf: only lasts a second, and is nothing I want to see, but the message is hugely important. I have never heard of Fr. Nathan. He seems very sincere to me. This does seem to give the missing piece of the puzzle to the huge acceptance of the gαy agenda practically overnight that I have never been able to figure out. (Meaning, how thousands of years of social disgust at gαy behavior could be turned around in a few short decades.)
P.S- there was no thumbs down from me. I get why you are upset by the pic bowler, but the message in the video compensates, I think. Unfortunately, many of us see images just as bad almost on commercials and billboards everyday. But do not watch the vid with kids in the room, folks.
-
Father?
-
One of the many campaigns I was involved with was getting the "He's gαy And We'Re COOL WITH THAT". photograph removed from a Catholic school website. This was in 2008.
-
I have never heard of [Br. Nathanael]. He seems very sincere to me.
I respectfully suggest, Tenant, that you read carefully what Agobard wrote two comments above yours. Brother Nathanael is a notorious con artist, engaged in what Jews (especially Israelis) call hasbara (roughly translatable as "propaganda"). If he weren't, he would long ago have been targeted as a hate criminal by the ACLU and the $PLC (i.e., he hasn't been). He exalts Jєωιѕн perversion and subversion even as he pretends to deplore it.
In practical terms, his function is to make clear that Jews and their allies get to set the limits of debate and discussion on every topic. If there is to be any criticism of a Jєωιѕн agenda or aim, whether the criticism be genuine or feigned, Jews and Jews alone get to offer it. They are, after all, our intellectual and moral superiors—and the sooner we all get that through our thick goyishe skulls, the better.
-
The sodomite agenda is well advanced and must be countered. In Ireland most of the bigger cities and towns have a sodomite march each year. A so called "Pride" event. One city is even looking at hosting the sodomite olympics. The flags associated with the sodomites are flown in some Irish cities.
-
That gross pic :barf: only lasts a second, and is nothing I want to see, but the message is hugely important.
Read what Claudel just wrote you. I knew nothing about this so-called "Brother" Nataniel, however, by his deed I knew he was not right in the head. One can't "look the other way" when sin is published, even for a "message that is hugely important. Look what I wrote:
Don't know who this "Brother" is but, he is not right in the head if he posts a scandalous picture like that, and that is only 5 seconds that I saw!
That man is not to be followed, that picture should have given all of us here a clear warning that that clown is not right in the head.
-
he is now considered a "father" by someone, from brother in ??? order, pretty soon we'll call him bishop.
-
They are, after all, our intellectual and moral superiors—and the sooner we all get that through our thick goyishe skulls, the better.
If all you do is rely on the television for information and believe what the media/culture tells you to do. And believe history began in the WW2 era, or for "patriots" in 1776.
-
That gross pic :barf: only lasts a second, and is nothing I want to see, but the message is hugely important. I have never heard of Fr. Nathan. He seems very sincere to me.
:laugh1:
He doesn't seem sincere at all.
That's what makes your comment funny.
If I were to post something on YouTube against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs I would not act like a cartoon character.
-
claudel and Agobard are making sense.
-
I often see people posting videos of this guy But nothing he says originates from him. It's not like he's an essential source. He reminds me of Alex Jones, in that he seems to function for the purposes claudel and Agobard cited.
I could be wrong, but his clownish antics combined with inserting salacious images into his videos (he does this a lot) rubs me the wrong way.
-
I could be wrong, but his clownish antics combined with inserting salacious images into his videos (he does this a lot) rubs me the wrong way.
By their deeds you shall know them.
-
Thanks to the articulations of the posters in this thread who are suspicious of Nathaniel. Something has always bothered me about his productions-- they seemed too sensational, kind of like a video form of nutter websites with size 18 font every third line and bolded text more than regular text (and red bolded for when it was really important).
I guess, in a nutshell, I always feel suspicious when it seems like someone is giving me a sales pitch.
-
bowler, if that's all it takes for you I guess you had better stay away from
Los Angeles. Especially Hollywood.
I know more about the aberrosɛҳuąƖ and have seen more than everyone on this forum put together, and I say, I don't need to see that garbage. Until that scene is removed, the entire posting is garbage. Jews or no Jews!
Get that garbage off!
I'm surprised that anyone on this forum is fighting me on this.
I appreciate your reaction, bowler. You have conviction, and that's decent.
I am reminded of a curious fact. We still have indecent exposure laws on the
books. Lest anyone be confused, that means (in California - I don't know about
other states) that a man without clothes in public can be arrested for indecent
exposure. But there have been several cases recently where women have
bared their breasts or even gone totally nude without any citation. One case
was, a celebrity wore an entirely transparent lexan suit to a restaurant in
Beverly Hills a couple of years ago. It came out that it's only illegal for MEN to
expose themselves, and it's not illegal for women to do so.
Now, perhaps it would not be illegal either, then for two women to carry on
with each other in public, kissing and so on. But if indecent exposure is not
allowed for men, it would seem that the video scene that you are protesting
should be an example of indecent exposure where two men carry on that way.
But as I sort of mentioned already, this kind of thing happens in public these
days in Hollywood, and especially West Hollywood. Yet I have not heard of
any civil penalties for it.
You know, Socrates was condemned to death in ancient Greece for giving
scandal to children. And all he did was speak sentences, ones that sound
today a lot like what good priests say from the pulpit. He basically spoke
arguments defending the concept of monotheism, when the Greeks had
public worship of many gods, or polytheism. It was so prominent that they
actually thought that his speaking solid logic that defends the existence of
only ONE God was "scandalous to children." And for that "offense" he was
condemned to drink a lethal cup of hemlock. But those two men in the video
and others like them in public these days are giving much greater scandal
to children than Socrates ever did!
That's something to think about.
It seems to be based on what society accepts as "normal behavior." And when
it becomes commonplace for something to happen without consequence, then
it will no longer be a punishable offense, in the eyes of the law.
The fαɢs may have to "sacrifice" a few "martyrs" for their cause but
eventually, they will achieve a level of tolerance in the public eye, such that
they will be able to do their "acts" with each other in public without any
adverse reaction from passers-by.
We and you, bowler, have been virtual passers-by in regard to that video.
-
That gross pic :barf: only lasts a second, and is nothing I want to see, but the message is hugely important. I have never heard of Fr. Nathan. He seems very sincere to me.
:laugh1:
He doesn't seem sincere at all.
That's what makes your comment funny.
If I were to post something on YouTube against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs I would not act like a cartoon character.
This is good. Now that you mention it, Brother Nathanael appears to be a
character in a Batman movie, that is, like a living "comic book". They could
draw him in with the Joker, the Penguin and the Riddler!
Maybe I shouldn't give him ideas!!
-
I agree with Bowler to a point. Immorality and perversions are so widespread these days even Christians can become somewhat desensitized to them, thinking that it's not that bad for a video intended to bring to light the instigators behind the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ agenda to contain some indecency. A principled opposition to the sodomite movement would not in any way legitimize their indecency by exposing viewers to such vulgar filth even for a moment.
-
The presentation of the information makes light of the topic, while the presenter gets love from both those he is giving the information to and those on the other side. It is a win-win situation for the presenter. They may be sending the same love/spiritual goods sent from those opposed to one of their own, who can switch sides with ease and send your own love and admiration you built up in him to be used later on against those who sent. (The last sentence is deliberately written in a way that only a few will understand) Do you want names in history of people who worked for both sides, rising in power of some sorts, only to hurt those under him, those very people who gave him some spiritual goods.
These characters are like a presidential campaign, don't fall for sending checks to some candidate or sending your willed efforts only to be let down later.
Imagine St. Paul reading blogs of the kind.
I've always thought something was not quite right about Bro Nathanael. I rarely watch his videos but not long ago he did one where he bragged about being arrested and then let go when the cops realized he was a Jew. He holds himself out to be a Christian but uses his Jєωιѕн identity when it serves a purpose.
If he truly were a Christian he would be attacked by Jews. He would be on the ADL most wanted list. I agree that (like Alex Jones) he is a disinformation agent whose job it is to convince the "goys" that the Jews already have a lock on everything and to discourage us from continuing the good fight.
I also think there a lot of "prepper" disinfo agents on YouTube and also financial prognosticators (Lindsey Williams, Max Keiser, Marc Faber) who spread lies to discourage us.
-
I have never heard of [Br. Nathanael]. He seems very sincere to me.
I respectfully suggest, Tenant, that you read carefully what Agobard wrote two comments above yours. Brother Nathanael is a notorious con artist, engaged in what Jews (especially Israelis) call hasbara (roughly translatable as "propaganda"). If he weren't, he would long ago have been targeted as a hate criminal by the ACLU and the $PLC (i.e., he hasn't been). He exalts Jєωιѕн perversion and subversion even as he pretends to deplore it.
In practical terms, his function is to make clear that Jews and their allies get to set the limits of debate and discussion on every topic. If there is to be any criticism of a Jєωιѕн agenda or aim, whether the criticism be genuine or feigned, Jews and Jews alone get to offer it. They are, after all, our intellectual and moral superiors—and the sooner we all get that through our thick goyishe skulls, the better.
"Brother" Nathaniel is at best seriously mentally ill, and at worst a simple liar. He is no kind of Orthodox monk. Every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in the country says this. (And yes, I actually did email them all and ask them.) The garb he wears may fool western Christians, but no Orthodox or Eastern Catholic would fall for it.
-
he is now considered a "father" by someone, from brother in ??? order, pretty soon we'll call him bishop.
Indeed. All he has to do to get that title is give it to himself. Just like he did with "Brother".
-
I have never heard of [Br. Nathanael]. He seems very sincere to me.
I respectfully suggest, Tenant, that you read carefully what Agobard wrote two comments above yours. Brother Nathanael is a notorious con artist, engaged in what Jews (especially Israelis) call hasbara (roughly translatable as "propaganda"). If he weren't, he would long ago have been targeted as a hate criminal by the ACLU and the $PLC (i.e., he hasn't been). He exalts Jєωιѕн perversion and subversion even as he pretends to deplore it.
In practical terms, his function is to make clear that Jews and their allies get to set the limits of debate and discussion on every topic. If there is to be any criticism of a Jєωιѕн agenda or aim, whether the criticism be genuine or feigned, Jews and Jews alone get to offer it. They are, after all, our intellectual and moral superiors—and the sooner we all get that through our thick goyishe skulls, the better.
"Brother" Nathaniel is at best seriously mentally ill, and at worst a simple liar. He is no kind of Orthodox monk. Every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in the country says this. (And yes, I actually did email them all and ask them.) The garb he wears may fool western Christians, but no Orthodox or Eastern Catholic would fall for it.
It never ceases to amaze me that people will disregard this information and call it a character attack, while suggesting that the focus is being thrown off his message; as if we don't' have enough evidence for support of our position against Zionists.
Some people- Yeesh! :fryingpan:
-
That gross pic :barf: only lasts a second, and is nothing I want to see, but the message is hugely important. I have never heard of Fr. Nathan. He seems very sincere to me.
:laugh1:
He doesn't seem sincere at all.
That's what makes your comment funny.
If I were to post something on YouTube against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs I would not act like a cartoon character.
This is good. Now that you mention it, Brother Nathanael appears to be a
character in a Batman movie, that is, like a living "comic book". They could
draw him in with the Joker, the Penguin and the Riddler!
Maybe I shouldn't give him ideas!!
Now, every time i come across one of his videos, I am going to think of him as a thrid class Batman villain. :smile:
-
His habit looks more like a cheap Hollywood costume.
Did he go to the same seminary as the Brothers Dimond?
-
Well, I guess I should thank you all for the correction. It never occurred to me that he might be a fake monk. I guess I am pretty naive. :ape:
-
It never occurred to me that he might be a fake monk. I guess I am pretty naive.
No, just not fully informed—the way I am and most of the rest of the human race is about almost everything except for the few topics we know a thing or two about.
You are quite welcome, of course.
Someone hereabouts, however, seems to be a pretty spiteful admirer of faux-bro Nathanael. He or she has been thumbs-downing every truthful comment about him.
-
I've never heard him claim to be "Father" Nathanael' only a brother.
He was indeed a brother though at Dormition Skete (http://www.dormitionskete.org), an Orthodox monastery at one time. He lives on his own now, but that typically does not remove 'brother'. It is not holy orders, brothers are unordained, but typically consecrated laity living in a religious community. I don't know how the Orthodox use the term (correction: see below)
He is hardly laying claim to Holy Orders, or really anything other than that he at one time lived in a religious community. Not exactly a lofty claim.
Apparently living alone is one of three recognized forms of monastic life by the orthodox (besides living in a skete) and they are still called brothers when they do so: http://www.dormitionskete.org/ds-history.shtml
Note also his attire which some have called a costume or mockery, matches the habit depicted on Dormition's website: http://www.dormitionskete.org/ds-history.shtml
-
His conspicuous use of a pectoral cross can be disturbing, especially when
he says things that are not becoming of anyone who is consecrated. I had
heard it denounced from the pulpit, that the laity should not be wearing
large pectoral crosses visible on the outside of their garments, and that
you can wear it inside, or under your shirt if you must.
For someone with corrosive skin, that would mean that you would have to
either have a stainless steel or precious metal cross, such as gold or
platinum or rhodium (at least plated), because silver tarnishes very quickly
with such a condition. Alternatively, such a one could just let the silver go
ahead and tarnish, to give the crucifix a dark bronzed hue like the crucifix
that Roger Cardinal Mahony put up in Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral.
Alternatively, all wood or plastic or some kind of synthetic could be used
that doesn't tarnish like silver or semi-precious or base metals do.
-
If you check the link I posted above, it does appear these monastics at the skete wear large crosses.
I cannot be sure that picture is a/the brother or a monastic with orders though.
One more thing, it seems he was at Dormition Skete and left under less than favorable circuмstances. He was not ecclesially processed, so he is probably still a brother, but he cannot live there since, apparently, they called the police on him.
It's a weird and confusing story. I doubt anyone is going to think it was anything other than his fault, but apparently he was accused of stealing a cassock after wearing it for 1.5 years and the heiromonk called the police over it:
http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4941&start=168
The heiromonk's correspondence is at that link as well as nathanael's commentary, it seems oddly apologetic and handwringing if it was such a cut and dry theft...go figure.
The guy clearly lives with a lot of complications. I read another thing doing some searching that some guy was threatening him and the court ruled in br. Nathanael's favor, so, there's that...he isn't always crazy apparently
-
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/305022/Are%20Holy%20Apostles%20Convent%20&%20Do
Yes, they are fanatical schismatics centred around the leadership of the monk Gregory Abu-Assaly, who styles himself 'Archbishop' Gregory (though perhaps he is already Metropolitan or even Patriarch by now, it's hard to tell. )
The story of an Antiochian boy, who became a novice at Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, who left there (charging Fr Panteleimon with abuse) to form his own Skete in Colorado under the Russian Church Abroad, who left them to go into a Greek Old Calendarist Group, who left them to go under the so-called Russian Autonomous Church under the infamous Valentine of Suzdal, who then left Valentine claiming he was immoral and set up his own Church, is a long one.
All this, however, does not invalidate the admirable publishing efforts the poor nuns who are the thumb of Fr Gregory. Their Hagiographical and Scriptural works are very helpful, including their Orthodox New Testament. (I've often found nuns in these schismatic groups to be much more level-headed and helpful than the men who are leading them.)
The problem with the ONT is that no one in the leadership of dreaded "World Orthodoxy" will ever endorse it because of where it comes from. But it is still very useful.
Fr David Straut
http://www.gocamerica.org/history_canonicity_statement_archbishop_gregory.shtml
Statement of Canonicity of
Archbishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado
Archbishop Gregory is a hierarch of the true Russian Orthodox Church in the direct line of the great hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad. When the Ecuмenical Movement officially started in 1965, it was St. Metropolitan Philaret and his Synod who first objected and then broke communion with the Greek Ecuмenical Patriarchate and all those in communion with it. The Greek Old Calendarists also were of the same mind and were in communion with the Russian Church Abroad (ROCA) up until ROCA’s union with the ecuмenist, Met. Cyprian of Fili in 1994. After the fall of Russian communism, in 1991 the ROCA ordained bishops for Russia. Those Russian bishops consecrated Archbishop Gregory in Russia. He is also a missionary bishop, in that he finds himself not only responsible for the churches in America, but also has churches in Bulgaria, Italy, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. What follows below is a short chronology of the events to show the canonicity of Archbishop Gregory.
In 1986, Metropolitan Vitaly became the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad succeeding the saintly Metropolitan Philaret.
On February 10, 1991, in the church of St. Job the Much - Suffering in Brussels, Archimandrite Valentine was consecrated Bishop of Suzdal and Vladimir (Russia). The consecration was carried out by four bishops of the Russian Church Abroad (ROCA), among them Bishop Gregory Grabbe, who had for many years assisted the great first-hierarchs of the ROCA. More bishops were later consecrated for Russia.
In the year 1994, Metropolitan Vitaly, with his Synod, announced that they were accepting the ecclesiology and theology of the deposed heretical ecuмenist, Met. Cyprian of Fili and therefore entered into communion with him. When this apostasy occurred, the Old Calendar Church of Greece broke communion with the Russian Church Abroad and about this time the bishops in Russia also severed communion with Metropolitan Vitaly. Archimandrite Gregory of Dormition Skete in Colorado also left the ROCA and joined the Old Calendar Church of Greece.
From 1994 to 2001, the bishops in Russia were united under the leadership of Archbishop Valentine. When their church was organized as the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC), they decreed that its head should hold the rank of Metropolitan.
On November 19/December 2, 2001, Archimandrite Gregory of Dormition Skete, in Colorado, having been released from the Old Calendar Church of Greece, was elected unanimously by the ROAC Synod of Bishops, and was ordained Bishop of Denver by Metropolitan Valentine, Archbishop Theodore, and Catacomb Bishop Anthony of Yaransk in the St. Constantine Cathedral, Suzdal, Russia. In 2002, Bishop Gregory was made ruling bishop of Denver and Colorado. In 2004, he was elevated to the rank of Archbishop because of his great missionary work.
In 2004, Metropolitan Valentine, (after recuperating from a pentuple heart bypass surgery in Colorado), attempted to compel Archbishop Gregory to accept several canonical infractions - (1) that the Metropolitan has universal and supreme jurisdiction in all dioceses and he is above the canons; (2) the wrong opinion that some of the mysteries of heretics and schismatics are valid; (3) that Baptism in a canonical form is unnecessary for the Orthodox Church, on which basis Met. Valentine received 180 unbaptized Haitians into the ROAC; and (4) the uncanonical seizure by Met. Valentine of several of Archbishop Gregory’s clergy and monastics without Archbishop Gregory’s consent.
When Archbishop Gregory sent a petition to the Synod in Russia against these crimes, Met. Valentine took all matters in his own hands, and cut off Archbishop Gregory from any further contact with the bishops in Russia. No synod meeting was ever permitted to convene to hear the charges against Met. Valentine.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Old_Calendarists
Archbishop Gregory (Dormition Skete / Colorado)
How should his eminence be classified? As a separate jurisdiction? Eddieuny 21:18, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)
Good question. What does he call his jurisdiction? Are there any other bishops in it with him? Their website describes them as "temporarily independent." I'd hate to make up a name for them if they didn't have their own, but they are probably worth a mention. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 21:48, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)
Oh, here we go: http://www.roacamerica.org/
It seems they're the "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America." —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 22:15, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)
It appears that Archbishop Gregory has changed his church's name to the "Genuine Orthodox Church of America." link title. However, this may be ambiguous as the Metropolis of the GOC-Chrysostomite under Metropolitan Pavlos is called GOC as is the Makarian Synod's presence in America. --Anastasios 14:07, February 20, 2006 (CST)
Article bias?
I received this feedback today from someone. Any comments? Thanks, Fr. John
Interesting. I think this article illustrates some of the problems with a publicly edited encyclopedia. Just a couple examples...
Headed by Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal, the synod has twelve bishops and is enjoying a period of relative stability amidst intermittent persecution on the part of the state church. One bishop, Gregory (George) of Colorado, recently went into schism, but took no parishes with him save four, calling themselves the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America.
This seems very biased in favor of Valentine and against Gregory (note that I am not the least bit fond of either of them).
Hi, this is Joseph Suaiden writing from a new account. While I am no longer part of ROAC, I still wouldn't retratct that. When Gregory discovered the Synod was issuing an order to appear at a Synodal trial, he fled the US, and hid in Greece for somewhere around a month, with only his followers able to communicate with him. In fact, they are now down to ONE active parish in America. So much for the "Genuine Orthodox Church of America". Joseph Suaiden
In 2001, after the ROCOR made a clear commitment to union with the Moscow Patriarchate, the head of the ROCOR synod, Metropolitan Vitaly, retired in clear disgust from the proceedings.
Almost immediately afterwards, Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Varnava of Cannes, and the two of the Russian bishops of ROCOR, separated from the ROCOR and made new bishops. The proceedings that led up to these events are well docuмented on the Internet and the treatment of the retired head of the ROCOR was painful to watch, for even the most casual observer.
Again, obvious bias in favor of the Mansonville schismatics (yes, I have a personal interest here).
I don't see why it couldn't be worded a bit more neutrally. The original bulk of the article was taken by permission from a text written by a scholar in the field (who is himself, I believe, in one of these groups), JosephSuaiden. In any event, it's curious that the person who wrote to you didn't see instead the inherent strengths of a publicly editable encyclopedia and come contribute.
I don't know precisely what is the issue here-- frankly, even Bishops of the ROCOR admitted that the event was handled badly, and Bp Michael was disciplined for his involvement in the videotaped incident, regardless of whether or not Mansonville was schismatic. I'll try to be careful; I have been updating my base text to reflect a number of recent changes-- there are now three mansonville groups, to start with.... Joseph Suaiden
I'll work with those passages to see if I can "neutralize" them a bit. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 15:15, 22 Jul 2005 (EDT)
There seems to be a bit of a controversy concerning this group.
-
I've never heard him claim to be "Father" Nathanael' only a brother.
He was indeed a brother though at Dormition Skete (http://www.dormitionskete.org), an Orthodox monastery at one time. He lives on his own now, but that typically does not remove 'brother'. It is not holy orders, brothers are unordained, but typically consecrated laity living in a religious community. I don't know how the Orthodox use the term (correction: see below)
He is hardly laying claim to Holy Orders, or really anything other than that he at one time lived in a religious community. Not exactly a lofty claim.
Apparently living alone is one of three recognized forms of monastic life by the orthodox (besides living in a skete) and they are still called brothers when they do so: http://www.dormitionskete.org/ds-history.shtml
Note also his attire which some have called a costume or mockery, matches the habit depicted on Dormition's website: http://www.dormitionskete.org/ds-history.shtml
I saw only two pictures of monks on the site. One was the abbot, who is apparently also a bishop wearing the formal full monastic habit which includes the veil. The other one was of a monk dressed properly but less formally wearing a hat without a veil.
Nathaniel wears a white hat, with a red cross on it, at least in some videos. This is just plain wrong. He also wears a choker cross around his neck. No monastic would ever wear such a thing. Also, in the Russian tradition only priests wear crosses at all. Unordained monks, or even deacons, do not. Ever.
-
Father Kramer's book, The Mystery of Iniquity would explain everything.
-
I've never heard him claim to be "Father" Nathanael' only a brother.
He was indeed a brother though at Dormition Skete (http://www.dormitionskete.org), an Orthodox monastery at one time. He lives on his own now, but that typically does not remove 'brother'. It is not holy orders, brothers are unordained, but typically consecrated laity living in a religious community. I don't know how the Orthodox use the term (correction: see below)
He is hardly laying claim to Holy Orders, or really anything other than that he at one time lived in a religious community. Not exactly a lofty claim.
Apparently living alone is one of three recognized forms of monastic life by the orthodox (besides living in a skete) and they are still called brothers when they do so: http://www.dormitionskete.org/ds-history.shtml
Note also his attire which some have called a costume or mockery, matches the habit depicted on Dormition's website: http://www.dormitionskete.org/ds-history.shtml
I saw only two pictures of monks on the site. One was the abbot, who is apparently also a bishop wearing the formal full monastic habit which includes the veil. The other one was of a monk dressed properly but less formally wearing a hat without a veil.
Nathaniel wears a white hat, with a red cross on it, at least in some videos. This is just plain wrong. He also wears a choker cross around his neck. No monastic would ever wear such a thing. Also, in the Russian tradition only priests wear crosses at all. Unordained monks, or even deacons, do not. Ever.
You can down thumb facts all you like, but they are still facts. Everything I stated in this post is true. Anyone who actually knew anything about the Eastern Church would know that.
NB: I am not assuming the down thumber was Iuvenalis.
-
NB: I am not assuming the down thumber was Iuvenalis.
It wasn't me. I didn't see anything objectionable about your reply.
-
Also, looks like this road has been travelled here before:
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=19083&min=0&num=10
-
I could be wrong, but his clownish antics combined with inserting salacious images into his videos (he does this a lot) rubs me the wrong way.
By their deeds you shall know them.
He names the Jew as enemy.
You do not.
Indeed ye shall know them.
-
Well, I guess I should thank you all for the correction. It never occurred to me that he might be a fake monk. I guess I am pretty naive. :ape:
He is genuine, this has all been established before.
Problem is, he says the things that need to be said.
For that he is a pariah.