Comments by "Ivan Engel" (@ivanengel8887) on "Conversations: Fr. Silouan Justiniano - The New World Isn't That Bad John | WAWTAR #155" video.

  1. I agree with you, John. This is completely backwards. Monarchy and democracy are virtually identical in administrative terms, the biggest difference comes with the whole spiritual and ideological underpinnings of each system. Systems are not value-neutral, they have their own spirit. Monarchy is not idealistic. It's the only system which recognizes God's authority and which is compatible with Orthodox theology. Why would it be a problem that we're not getting a monarchy ever again? Because it would mean we're in a different age than when monarchies existed, and that the world is soon for destruction. To simply disregard the fact that monarchies are better than democracies because they might not reapear is weak and inherently progressive. Things are always going downhill in terms of the fall, the alternative is the worldly kingdom that ironically was denounced (simply because there's a fringe of monarchists who want to retake Constantinople). The problem is not empire, the problem is not seeing the royal path and idolizing politics. I actually think it's the other way around, Fr Siluoan Justiniano is the one expecting an earthly kingdom and over-correcting. Just because we feel that monarchy is probably not going to reappear doesn't mean that wanting one is bad. He doesn't want the world to end, but it will, and he's playing too loose in order to prevent the inevitable. He sounds scared of the end of the world and saying it's others who are scared and finding refuge in ideology. It's not always the case. It was prophesied that the world would end. Jesus reprimanded St Peter when he tried to prevent Christ's death. Monarchy is not about better governance, it's about faithfulness. I'd support it even if it meant a worse life. Who cares if I'm being persecuted when to be tempted is much worse? Who cares about ease and so called "freedom"? The damned. I'll pray for Fr Silouan Justiniano who seems gripped by the same worldliness that affects Pageau of trying to redeem the secular... which is the spirit of the world... simply because their view of art is incomplete at a paradigmatic level. It's bad sociology pushing out the pattern of hesychia.
    3
  2. ​ @looqo7632 I disagree with the Holy Spirit not "showing up", perhaps you meant it in a particular sense that I'm not seeing. Anything that participates in the energies of God participates in the Holy Spirit, because it is the Holy Spirit who allows it. Anything good is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I never actually said that it's impossible that monarchy does happen, I merely suggested that people may not want to repent, and that this will lead to the destruction of the world. So let's not confuse ourselves and say this is a blessing. To say it is a blessing is to confuse the good and the bad thief, the cross properly taken up with the unrepentant sin. It is better to try to bring about repentance and to work for the return of monarchies so that God postpones His Judgment. That is the Christian move.
    1
  3.  @heavythingslightly  First I appreciate you taking the time to read the long comment and responding. What I meant is probably more nuanced than what "love of the temporal" would superficially seem to imply. Yes, it would ultimately boil down to that, but in emotional terms I'd express it more as a fear of losing the body than a pleasurable love for the body. Who can honestly say they don't fear losing their lives ever? Perhaps we're fearless for a second, or we're bargaining with the world wanting a "good death", but the cross is hard. I didn't mean to disrespect Fr Silouan who I hold in high regard, but I think it's the same issue that Pageau has in regards to the arts and the "fairy", his djinn theory. They get so close to the arts and the icon that they begin to confuse the icon for the real person, mistaking the body for the spirit, the man with the angel, and ultimately fearing more for the body and its possibility for expression, than accepting that the body must die in order to bring fruits. They have really great points within their own perspective, but the pattern of hesychia, to me, implies letting go of the body, not in a gnostic sense, but in the sense of truly accepting the inevitable corruption of the world without condoning it. I think that acceptance of being lowered is what the angels and men could share without erasing the differences between man and angel. I think their perspective ends up wanting to give the created spirits leeway to repent, and it becomes like a nephilim confused version. God bless!
    1