If your parish priest won't give you permission to go to a monastery, based on some of the dogmatically questionable things you've said, I would suggest you go to a different parish. It's remotely possible you've landed in one of the .0001% of Orthodox parishes that have charismatic heretics as priests; they do exist; just last night in another thread I cited the example of Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov, the heretical parish priest par excellence. I would cite his coreligionists St. Pavel Florensky as well, but Florensky despite his error received the crown of martyrdom from the Soviets, whereas in the emigration Bulgakov continued propagating the error of Sophiology for many years, which is the most gross perversion of the Orthodox faith to appear in the 20th century (I know here are many who will claim ecumenism and the new calendar are worse; if they are in fact heretical, they have been more successful, but Sophiology as a heresy represents the end-state condition of what the Church might look like according to the fears of those opposed to ecumenism if ecumenical reunification were to happen, whereas the "pan heresy of ecumenism", if it is a heresy, is merely a means of getting to Sophiology, and not an endostatic heretical condition, a deadly disease, but not death, since a church engaged in ecumenism can always reduce it's involvement or stop, as the Georgian example demonstrates).
But what is it about monastic rhetoric that is eating you?
Also regarding your comment regarding bishops,,they are monks, and the gatekeepers of Holy Tradition, there is no disputing that. But they are also very busy. A pious and god fearing monk will represent the Orthodox faith correctly and in conformance with the views of his bishop, as will a priest. But again, the monk has more time on his hands to answer difficult questions.