POPE’S IDEALS COME FROM MODERN AGE RATIONALISM
OF AN EARTHLY MILLENIUM
On October 4, 1965, Pope Paul VI gave an unprecedented address before the United Nations. This event corroborated exactly what Eugene (Seraphim) had told Gleb about the United Nations back in 1961, on the day of their first meeting. “An
examination of the Pope’s address,” Eugene wrote:
“[This speech] reveals a singular fact; the purpose of the Church of Christ is not mentioned, and the name of Christ appears in it only once, in an ambiguous final sentence. It is perhaps assumed that the audience knows for what the Pope stands; he said, indeed, ‘You know our mission.’ But later, when characterizing the
‘aspiration’ of the Church of Rome, he said only that she wished to be ‘unique and universal — in the spiritual field!’
For a single moment only in his address did it seem that the Pope might be about to speak a word of genuine Christianity. Citing the commandment of our Lord to
His Disciples to ‘go and bring the good news to all peoples,’ the Pope announced that he indeed had a ‘happy message’ for ‘all peoples’ represented at the United Nations. For Christians, this can only mean one thing; the good news of salvation, of eternal life in God. The Pope, however, had a different, an astonishing message: ‘We might call our message a solemn moral ratification of this lofty institution.’
This is what Rome offers today in place of the Christian Gospel!
The Pope’s ideals come not from our Lord, not from the Apostles and Fathers of the Church of Christ, but rather from the rationalist dreamers of the modern age who have revived the ancient heresy of chiliasm — the dream of an earthly
millennium. This heresy was explicit in the Pope’s evocation of the ‘new age’ of humanity, and of a ‘new history — peaceful, truly human history as promised by God to men of good will.’ The Church of Christ has never taught this strange doctrine; it is, however, one of the cardinal doctrines of Freemasonry, of occultism and numerous related sects, and even (without mention of God) of Marxism. For adopting this sectarian fantasy into the body of Latin doctrine the Pope was acclaimed by the press as a ‘prophet.’ Involuntarily one calls to mind the last work of the nineteenth century Russian philosopher, Vladimir Soloviev — the ‘Short Story of Antichrist’ (from Three
Conversations) — in which, basing himself primarily on the Holy Fathers, he draws a chilling picture of Antichrist as a ‘great humanitarian’ and superman, accepted by the world as Messiah. Paul VI is not Antichrist; but the whole ‘drama’ in which he
was the chief ‘actor’ something of the seductiveness of Antichrist is already present. To be sure, it is nothing original with him; it is rather the culmination of centuries of apostasy.”
THE UNIVERSAL MONARCHY OF THE POPE &
HOW THE UNIVERSAL MONARCH WILL BE THE ANTICHRIST
Another underlying thread in this history of the apostasy is the search of universal monarchy. In his notes Fr. Seraphim wrote: “The thirteenth century saw the theory of the universal monarchy of the Pope — that all the land in the world belongs to the Pope as Christ’s representative on earth, and he gives it to landholders. The climax of this point of view occurred at the jubilee of 1300 in Rome, when Pope Boniface VII seated himself on the throne of Constantine, arrayed himself in a sword, crown and scepter, and shouted aloud: ‘I am Caesar — I am Emperor.’ This was not just an act but an indication of something extremely
deep in the whole of modern thought: the search for a universal monarch, which will be the Antichrist.”
GRACE HAS BEEN LOST IN THE CHURCH OF ROME
The Church of Christ is that which gives grace to people; and in the West, when Rome broke off from this Church, this grace was actually lost (maybe people incidentally found it here and there, but from their whole Church the grace was cut off). I look at modern Roman Catholicism as an attempt to substitute by
human ingenuity, the grace which it lost. Therefore, it makes the Pope “infallible,” having to give an answer to the question “where is truth?”
LET THE BETRAYERS OF ORTHODOXY UNITE WITH THE CATHOLICS BUT THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE ENTIRE
ORTHODOX CHURCH
The deviations from Orthodoxy of the present Patriarch of Constantinople [Athenagoras] have reached a new peak in the recent “ecumenical” act of “mutual pardon” with the Pope of Rome (Dec. 7, 1965). It is more than time to bring up in the English language Orthodox press what has been long discussed in the Greek and Russian press. With the formal statement of Metropolitan Philaret, together with a similar one made by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, the voices of protest have now been joined by official declarations, and these have found responsive ears among the other Eastern Patriarchs. The Orthodox world is lining up into two camps; if the new “union” with Rome is accomplished, the unionists will find themselves in schism, cut off from the Orthodox Church. As regards the Patriarch of Constantinople, a few basic facts should be kept in mind. First, he does not and cannot speak for the whole of the Orthodox Church; the present campaign of the unionists to make him the official spokesman for all of Orthodoxy has absolutely no foundation in Orthodox tradition; he is one bishop among many, enjoying a primacy of honor among his fellow patriarchs and bishops.
Second, in the Orthodox Church no act or statement possesses validity merely because it comes from a bishop or patriarch; it can possess validity only if it is Orthodox. The actual statements and actions of Patriarch Athenagoras disqualify him to speak for any Orthodox Church, not even his own, since they represent,
not Orthodoxy, but apostasy, — a departure from Orthodoxy which, if pursued further, will separate him entirely from the Church of Christ. The propagandists for “union” disdain such fact; for them, fidelity to Orthodox tradition is a small thing. Their campaign, rather, is waged on the most primitive level, that of pure publicity — empty words and gestures which, though condemned by a sound Orthodox consciousness, are capable of exerting an immense influence over those, even within the Church herself, who are ignorant of Orthodox tradition.
The act of “mutual pardon” was such an empty gesture. Possessing no canonical validity in itself, what it was in fact was merely a sign to the world that the “union” is close at hand, that the Patriarch of Constantinople is prepared to abandon the Church of Christ to join the universal pseudo-religious organization envisioned by the Vatican. Rather than anger, sorrow is perhaps the most appropriate response to such gestures — sorrow over the lack of love and understanding of their own tradition that such gestures reveal in the unionists. Anyone who actually believes
that “nothing separates” Roman Catholicism from Orthodoxy, that they are but “two branches of the same Church,” understands nothing whatever of genuine
Orthodoxy. The unionists, apparently, are already Latins at heart, and the final act of union will only confirm their estrangement from the Church of Christ. Let the unionists, then, the betrayers of Orthodoxy, become Catholics if they will; but let
them cease from pretending to speak for the Orthodox Church, which most emphatically rejects them.
St Justin Popovich (+1979)☦️
ORTHODOX DOGMA REPLACED BY THE LATIN HERETICAL DOGMA
Orthodox dogma, the universal dogma of the Church, has been rejected and replaced by the Latin heretical and universal dogma of the primacy and later the infallibility of the Pope, a man. This universal heresy has engendered other heresies: the Filioque, the removal of the epiclesis, the introduction of material grace, unleavened bread, purgatory, a repository of surplus deeds, a mechanical teaching on salvation and, thereby, a mechanical teaching on life, on papo centrism, on the Holy Inquisition, indulgences, the killing of sinners because of their sin, jesuitics, scholastics, casuistics, monarchistics, social humanism and so forth. PAPISM IS THE MOST RADICAL PROTESTANTISM483 Papism has determinedly and persistently worked at replacing the God-Man by a man, until it has replaced Him forever with the ephemeral “infallible” man, with the dogma of papal infallibility. By this dogma, the Pope was clearly and decisively pronounced to be not only somewhat higher than a man, but also higher than the holy apostles, the holy fathers and the holy Ecumenical Councils. With such distancing from the Theanthropos, from the universal Church as a theanthropic organism, Papism has outdone Luther, the creator of Protestantism. ln fact, the first, radical protest in the name of humanism against Christ the God-Man and His theanthropic organism, the Church, can be traced to Papism, not Lutheranism. Papism is actually the first and earliest Protestantism. Make no mistake: Papism is the most radical Protestantism, for it has transferred the foundations of Christianity from the eternal God-Man to ephemeral man. It has proclaimed this as its central dogma, as the highest truth, the highest value, the highest norm for all beings and things in all worlds. The Protestants only accepted the essence of this dogma and worked it out to a fearsome extent and in fearsome detail. In fact, Protestantism is nothing other than generally-applied Papism, for in Protestantism every man individually lives out the main principle of Papism. Following the example of the infallible man in Rome, every Protestant is an infallible man, for he pretends to personal infallibility in matters of faith. It could be said that Protestantism is vulgarized Papism, devoid of mysticism, authority and power.
INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE HAS BECOME THE UNIVERSAL DOGMA OF PAPISM
By the appropriating, through the dogma of infallibility, of all the power and rights belonging solely to Christ the God-Man, the Pope, a man, has, in fact, by this act, proclaimed himself a church within the papist Church and has become all powerful in it. He has become his own version of the “upholder of all things”. For this reason, the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope has become the universal dogma of Papism. The Pope cannot give it up at any price, as long as he is the Pope of humanistic Papism.
PAPISM IS THE PINNACLE OF NIHILISM
What is the core of the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, a man? The de theanthropising of man. All the humanisms are working on it, even the religious ones. They all return man to atheism, to paganism, to a twofold death: spiritual and physical. By distancing itself from the God-Man, every humanism gradually turns into nihilism. The present breakdown of all humanisms headed by Papism (which is both an indirect and a direct, an involuntary and a voluntary, parent of all European humanisms), illustrates this. The catastrophic breakdown of Papism lies in the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope. This dogma is the pinnacle of nihilism. European man has thereby, in a dogmatically determined way, proclaimed the dogma of the autarchy of European man, and has thus finally revealed that he does not need the God-Man, that there is no place on earth for Him; Vicarius Christi replaces Him completely. Every European humanism lives by this dogma, upholds it and stubbornly confesses it.
INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE IS THE ULTIMATE HERESY
According to the true Church of Christ, that has existed since the advent of Christ the Theanthropos into this world as His theanthropic Body, the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope is not only a heresy, but the ultimate heresy. No other heresy has so radically and so comprehensively risen against Christ the Theanthropos and His Church as Papism has through the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, a man. This is undoubtedly the heresy above all heresies. It is the horror above all horrors. It is an unseen rebellion against Christ the God Man. It is, alas, the most dreadful banishment of the Lord Christ from the earth. It is the repeated betrayal of Christ, the repeated crucifixion of the Lord Christ, not on a wooden cross this time but on the golden cross of papist humanism. All this is hell thrice over for the wretched earthly being called man.
DEFENDING ORTHODOXY AGAINST THE CONCORDAT
Wherever he went, and on all who came to seek his advice, he left a profound impression: that of a man who lived only for God and for the defence of the truth of the Gospel. Taking the Prophets and the Fathers of the Church as models, he steadfastly asserted that, in Orthodoxy, all is according to the Gospel: faith, prayer, ascesis, the Divine Office, the Holy Mysteries and the holy virtues. The whole of the Church’s Tradition is nothing other than the living gospel. In the turmoil that preceded the Second World War, he refused to take part in the game of political passions, proclaiming evangelical truth with no fear of human pressure. It was thus that he unambiguously defended the cause of Orthodoxy, when the Vatican was seeking to impose Catholicism as the state religion in Yugoslavia in the form of a Concordat (1937). During the sixties, although some Orthodox were taken up with the path of ecclesiological relativism, going as far as denying the uniqueness of the Church of Christ in the name of Christian charity, Father Justin once more made himself the mouthpiece of the Church’s conscience to denounce the dangers threatening Orthodoxy. If, in his writings, he radically condemned heterodox dogmas much in the manner of the Old Testament prophets, he had in fact great sensitivity towards people, and a ready compassion for human misery.
ONLY ORTHODOXY IS THE VESSEL OF GOD-HUMAN CHRIST, NOT ROMAN CATHOLICISM OR PROTESTANTISM
And today only Orthodox ascetic efforts and virtues can bring about sanctity in every soul, in the soul of all our people — seeing that the God-human objective of the Church is unalterable, and its means are likewise so, since Christ is indeed the same, yesterday and today and unto all ages (Heb. 13:8). Herein lies the difference between the world of men and the one in Christ: the human world is transient and time-bound, whilst that of Christ is as ever whole, for ever more. Orthodoxy, as the single vessel and guardian of the perfect and radiant Person of God-human Christ, is brought about exclusively by this exertion of virtues by grace, through entirely God-human Orthodox means, not borrowings from Roman Catholicism or Protestantism because the latter are forms of Christianity after the pattern of the proud European being, and not of the humble God-human being.
PAPACY REPLACES THE GOD-MAN WITH AN INFALLIBLE MAN
In the European West, Christianity gradually became transformed into humanism. For several centuries the God-man became more and more limited and confined to His humanity, eventually becoming the infallible man of Rome and Berlin. Thus, on the one hand there appeared a western Christian humanistic maximalism (the papacy) which took everything away from Christ, and on the other hand a western Christian humanistic minimalism (Protestantism) which sought very little if anything from Christ. In both man takes the place of God-man as that which is of most value and is the measure of all things. Thus, a most grievous correction of the God-man, His work, and His teaching was accomplished! The Papacy persistently and continuously tried to replace the God-man with man, until finally when the dogma of the infallibility of man supplanted the God man with an infallible man. With this dogma, man (the Pope) was proclaimed decisively and clearly to be something not only greater than man, but greater than the holy Apostles, the holy Fathers, and the Oecumenical Synods. With this rebellion against the God-man and the catholic-ecumenical Church, papal maximalism surpassed even Luther himself, the founder of Protestant minimalism. Indeed, the first fundamental protest against the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is to be found in the Papacy and not in Lutheranism. Yet it is precisely in this protest that one finds the origins of Protestantism. We must not be mistaken. Western Christian humanistic maximalism, i.e., the Papacy, is fundamentally Protestantism since it removed the foundation of Christianity from the eternal God-man and placed it in finite man claiming this to be the measure and criterion of all. Protestantism did nothing more than to simply accept this dogma and to develop it to a point where it has reached horrendous proportions and particulars. Truly, then, Protestantism is nothing other than an abstract papism being applied to everything, that is, the basic principle of the infallibility of one man has been applied to every individual human being. According to the example of the infallible man of Rome, every Protestant becomes infallible since he claims personal infallibility in matters of faith. From this it can be said that Protestantism is a popularized Papism lacking however a mystical dimension, authority, and power. Christianity, with all its infinite theanthropic truths, was confined in the West to the human individual with the result that western Christianity was transformed into humanism. This may seem paradoxical, but it is true. The historical reality of this is shown in an indisputable way. In its essence, western Christianity is fundamentally humanistic since it has declared man infallible, thus transforming the theanthropic religion into a humanistic one. Proof of this is found in the fact that the Roman Church transported the God-man back to heaven and in His place put a substitute: Vicarius Christi… What a tragic absurdity: to appoint a substitute representative for the all-present Lord and God! It is, however, a fact that this absurdity was realized in western Christianity. Thus, the de-incarnation of the incarnate God, the de-incarnation of the God man, was somehow accomplished. Western Christian humanism proclaimed that the all-present God-man was not present in Rome and thus appointed His substitute in the person of an infallible man. It is as if this humanism were saying to the God-man: Depart from this world and go to the next since we have your representative who infallibly represents you in everything. This replacement of the God-man with a human person is reflected in the replacement of a Christian theanthropic methodology by a human one. From this replacement has emerged the primacy of Aristotelian philosophy in Scholasticism, the causative method and the holy inquisition in morality, papal diplomacy in the international arena, the papal state, forgiveness of sins through both indulgences and the radio and finally the Jesuit movement in its various forms. All this leads to the following conclusion: Humanistic Christianity constitutes the most decisive protest against the God-man and His role as the criterion of all things.
INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE IS THE REBIRTH OF IDOLATRY
All the European humanisms strive consciously or unconsciously, but they strive unceasingly, for one result: to replace faith in the God-man with a belief in man, to replace the Gospel of the God-man with a gospel according to man, to replace the philosophy of the God-man with a philosophy according to man, to replace the culture of the God-man with a culture according to man. In brief, they seek to replace life according to the God-man with life according to man. This has been developing for centuries until in the last century, in 1870 at the First Vatican Council, all these efforts achieved their pinnacle in the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope. This dogma subsequently became the central dogma of the papacy. In our own times, during the Second Vatican Council, this doctrine was discussed so persistently and so skillfully that the notion of its inviolability and inalterability was strongly reinforced. This doctrine has an overwhelming significance for the fate of the European civilization, and for the apocalyptic times into which it has brought itself. Through this dogma all European humanisms have built their ideals and their idol: man has been declared the supreme godhead, the ultimate godhead. The dogma concerning the infallibility of the 20th century pope is nothing other than the rebirth of idolatry and polytheism, the rebirth of idolatrous value judgments and criteria. Through the dogma of infallibility, the pope usurped for himself, that is for man, the entire jurisdiction and all the prerogatives which belong only to the Lord God-man. He effectively proclaimed himself as the Church, the papal church, and he has become in her the be-all and end-all, the self proclaimed ruler of everything. In this way the dogma of the infallibility of the pope has been elevated to the central dogma (svedogmat) of the papacy.
THE FALL OF THE POPE IS THE CONSE UENCE OF THE DESIRE TO SUBSTITUTE MAN FOR THE GOD-MAN
In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope. The principal characteristic of falling into sin is always the same: wanting to be good for one’s own sake; wanting to be perfect for one’s own sake; wanting to be God for one’s own sake. In this manner, however, man unconsciously equates himself to the devil, because the devil also wanted to become God for his own sake, to put himself in the place of God. And in this self-elevation he instantly became devil, completely separated from God, and always in opposition to him. Therefore, the essence of sin, of every sin (svegreha), consists of this arrogant self-aggrandizement. This is the very essence of the devil himself, of Satan. It is nothing other than one’s wanting to remain within one’s own being, wanting nothing within oneself other than oneself. The entire devil is found here: in the desire to exclude God, in the desire to always be by himself, to always belong only to himself, to be entirely within himself and always for himself, to be forever hermetically sealed in opposition to God and everything that belongs to God. And what is this? It is egotism and self-love embraced in all eternity, that is to say: it is hell. For that is essentially what the humanist is — entirely within himself, by himself, for himself, always spitefully closed in opposition to God. Here lies every humanism, every hominism. The culmination of such satanically oriented humanism is the desire to become good for the sake of evil, to become God for the sake of the devil. It proceeds from the promise of the devil to our forefathers in Paradise — that with his help, “they would become as gods” (Gen. 3:5). Man was created with theanthropic potential by God who loves mankind, so that he might voluntarily direct himself, through God, toward becoming God-man, based on the divinity of his nature. Man, however, with his free will sought sinlessness through sin, sought God through the devil. And assuredly, following this road, he would have become identical with the devil had God not interceded in His immeasurable love of mankind and in His great mercy. By becoming man, that is to say God-man, he redirected man toward the God-man. He introduced him to the Church, which is His body, to the reward (podvig) of theosis through the holy mysteries and the blessed virtues. And in this manner, he gave man the strength to become “a perfect man, in the measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13), to achieve, that is, the Divine destiny, to voluntarily become God-man by grace. The fall of the pope is a consequence of the desire to substitute man for the God-man.
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXTERMINATES MAN AS A SPIRITUAL AND PHYSICAL ENTITY
The Second Vatican Council resulted in the rebirth of all European humanisms, the rebirth of cadavers. Since Christ the God-man is present in this terrestrial world, each and every humanism is a cadaver. Matters reached this stage because the Council persisted in maintaining the dogma concerning the infallibility of the pope (= the man). Examined from the vantage point of the eternally living God man, the historic Lord Jesus, all humanisms resemble criminal utopias to a greater or lesser extent. In the name of man, they find various ways to murder man, to exterminate him as a spiritual and physical entity. All the humanisms arrive at one tragic, irrational result: they strain at a gnat, and they swallow a camel. In the matter of papal infallibility, the notion has been elevated to dogma. And it is a horror, a horror in the extreme. Why? It is because the very dogma regarding the infallibility of man is nothing other than the shuddering funeral of every humanism, from the ideas that the Vatican has established as dogma to the satanic humanism of Sartre. In the humanistic pantheon of Europe all the gods are dead, with European Zeus at the forefront. Dead, until such time as there arises in their withered hearts a complete, self-denying repentance, accompanied by the lightning and thunder of Golgotha, with its resurrectional earthquakes and transformations, and with its richly yielding storms and ascensions. And then? Then, their doxologies to the living, eternal, wondrous God-man, the only lover of mankind in all the worlds, will be unending.
PAPACY IS THE FIRST PROTESTANTISM
What is at the core of the dogma regarding papal (man’s) infallibility? It is the de-theanthropization of man. This is sought by all humanisms, even the religious ones. All return man to idolatry, to polytheism, to the dual death, spiritual as well as physical. Distancing itself from the God-man, every humanism by degrees becomes nihilism. This reveals the simultaneous bankruptcy of all humanisms, led by that of the papacy which, directly or indirectly, voluntarily or involuntarily, is the father of all European humanisms. The resulting bankruptcy, the disastrous bankruptcy of the papacy lies in the dogma of papal infallibility. It is precisely this dogma of nihilism that is uppermost. For this, European man in a doctrinaire and determined manner has proclaimed the dogma of self-sufficiency, and in this way has asserted that the God-man is not needed. There is no place for him on earth… the dogma concerning infallibility of the pope has led to the proclamation of the general infallibility of man. And from this followed the innumerable popes of all European cultures, of the Vatican, and of Protestantism. The papacy is the first Protestantism.
DOGMA OF THE POPE IS THE HERESY OF HERESIES
With respect to the dogma concerning papal infallibility, as a practical matter the pope has been proclaimed to be the Church, and the pope — a man — has usurped the place of the God-man. This is the ultimate triumph of humanism and simultaneously “the second death” (Rev. 20:14, 21:8) of the papacy, and through it and after it the death of every humanism. However, the dogma of papal infallibility is not only a heresy but the greatest heresy against the True Church of Christ, which has existed in our terrestrial world as a theanthropic body ever since the appearance of the God-man. No other heresy has revolted so violently and so completely against the God-man Christ and His Church as has the papacy with the dogma of the pope-man’s infallibility. There is no doubt about it. This dogma is the heresy of heresies, a revolt without precedent against the God-man Christ on this earth, a new betrayal of Christ, a new crucifixion of the Lord, this time not on wood but on the golden cross of papal humanism. And these things are hell, damnation for the wretched earthly being called man.
PAPISM IS A PAN-HERESY
Ecumenism is the common name for the pseudo-Christianity of the pseudo Churches of Western Europe. Within it is the heart of European humanism, with Papism as its head. All of pseudo-Christianity, all of those pseudo-Churches, are nothing more than one heresy after another. Their common evangelical name is Pan-heresy. Why? This is because through the course of history various heresies denied or deformed certain aspects of the God-man and Lord Jesus Christ; these European heresies remove Him altogether and put European man in His place. In this there is no essential difference between Papism, Protestantism, Ecumenism, and other heresies, whose name is “Legion.” Orthodox dogma, that is to say the overriding dogma of the Church, is rejected by them and replaced by the Latin heretical overriding dogma of the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, that is to say of man. From this pan-heresy heresies were born and continue to be born: the Filioque, the rejection of the invocation of the Holy Spirit, unleavened bread, the introduction of created grace, cleansing fire, superfluous works of the saints, mechanized teachings about salvation, and from this sprang mechanized teachings about life, Papocaesarism496 , the Inquisition, indulgences, the murder of sinners because of their sins, Jesuitism, the scholastics, the casuists, Monarchianism, and social individualism of different kinds.
THERE ARE NO MYSTERIES OUTSIDE OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH; TRUE SACRAMENTS ARE ONLY RECEIVED THROUGH REPENTANCE AND RETURN TO THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF CHRIST
The teaching of the Orthodox Church of the God-Man Christ, formulated the following about heretics through the Holy Apostles, the Holy Fathers, and the Holy Synods: heresies are not a Church, nor can they be a Church. Therefore, they cannot have Holy Mysteries, especially the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Sacraments. Precisely because the Holy Eucharist is everything and all in the Church: even the God-man Lord Jesus Christ and the Church itself and everything in general of the God-man. Intercommunion, that is to say participating with heretics in the Holy Sacraments, and especially in the Holy Eucharist, is the most shameless betrayal of our Lord Jesus Christ, Judas’ betrayal. It is especially the betrayal of the whole of the one and unique Church of Christ, of the Holy Tradition of the Church. One would have to rid oneself of one’s Christ-like way of thinking and one’s conscience before the various sacraments, before their holy meanings, and the holy commandments in order to do this. First of all, we would have to ask ourselves on what Ecclesiology and on what Theology of the Church is “intercommunion” based? This is because all of Orthodox Theology is not founded on or based on “inter-communion,” but upon the theanthropic reality of communion, that is to say upon theanthropic Communion itself. (cf. 1 Cor. 1:9, 10:16-17; 2 Cor. 13:13; Heb. 2:14; 3:14; John 1:3) The idea of inter-communion is contradictory in itself and totally inconceivable for the Orthodox Catholic conscience. The second fact, indeed a sacred fact of Orthodox faith, is the following: In Orthodox teaching about the Church and the Sacraments, the single most unique mystery is the Church itself, the Body of the God-man Christ, so that she is the only source and the content of all divine Sacraments. Outside of this theanthropic and inclusive Mystery of the Church, the Pan Mystery itself, there are no and cannot be any “mysteries”; therefore, there can be no inter-communion of Mysteries. Consequently, we can only speak about Mysteries within the context of this unique Pan-Mystery which is the Church. That is because the Orthodox Church, as the Body of Christ, is the source and foundation of the Sacraments and not the other way around. The Mysteries, or Sacraments cannot be elevated above the Church, or examined outside the Body of the Church.
St Ignatius Brianchaninov (1867)☦️ :
Papism
Papism ascribes to the Pope the attributes of Christ and thereby denies Christ. Some Western writers have almost explicitly stated this denial, declaring that it is far less of a sin to deny Christ than to deny the Pope. The Pope is the idol of the Papists; he is their deity. Because of this terrible error, the grace of God has departed from the Papists; they have abandoned themselves to themselves and Satan, the inventor and father of all heresies, including Papism. In this state of darkness, they have distorted certain dogmas and sacraments, and have stripped the Divine Liturgy of its essential meaning, eliminating from it the invocation of the Holy Spirit and the blessing of the offered bread and wine, by which they are transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. This essential part of the Liturgy was present in all the liturgies transmitted by the Apostles of Christ throughout the universe, including the original Roman Liturgy. – No heresy so openly and brazenly expresses its immeasurable pride, harsh contempt for people and hatred for them.
* * *
In modern times, pagan life first emerged within the bosom of papism. The pagan sentiment and taste of the papists are particularly evident in their application of the arts to religious subjects, in painted and sculpted images of saints, in their church singing and music, and in their religious poetry. All their schools bear the imprint of sinful passions, especially lust; they lack a sense of chastity and propriety, a sense of simplicity, a sense of purity and spirituality. Such is their church music and singing. Their poet, describing the liberation of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre, does not hesitate to invoke the muse; he sings of Zion alongside Helicon, and from the muse he moves on to the Archangel Gabriel. The infallible popes, these new idols of Rome, are models of debauchery, tyranny, impiety, and blasphemy against all that is holy. Pagan life, with its comedy and tragedy, with its dancing, with its rejection of shame and decency, with its fornication and adultery and other customs of idolaters, firstly arose in Rome under the shadow of its gods – the popes, and from there it spread throughout Europe.
St Ambrose of Optina (+1891)☦️:
In vain do some Orthodox marvel at the current propaganda of the Roman Church, the supposed self-denial and activity of its missionaries, and the zeal of the Latin sisters of mercy. They incorrectly ascribe such importance to the Latin Church, as if, after its apostasy from the Orthodox Church, the latter did not remain the same, but rather felt the need to seek union with it. Upon rigorous examination, this opinion proves false; and the energetic Latin activity not only fails to arouse surprise, but, on the contrary, arouses deep regret in the hearts of right-thinking people who understand the truth.
From apostolic times to the present, the Orthodox Eastern Church has preserved unchanged and uncorrupted by innovation both the Gospel and Apostolic teachings, as well as the tradition of the Holy Fathers and the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. At these Councils, God-bearing men, gathered from the entire universe, collectively composed the divine Symbol of the Orthodox Faith and, having proclaimed it to the entire universe as perfect and complete in all respects, forbade with dire penalties any addition, subtraction, alteration, or rearrangement of even a single iota. The Roman Church, however, long ago deviated into heresy and innovation. Even Basil the Great denounced certain bishops of Rome for this in his letter to Eusebius of Samosata.
"They do not know the truth, and do not want to know it; they argue with those who proclaim the truth to them, but they themselves assert heresy."
(Circumstances § 7).
The Apostle Paul commands us to distance ourselves from those corrupted by heresy, and not to seek union with them, saying: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, deny ye: knowing that such a man is subverted, and sinneth, and is condemned of himself" ( Titus 3:10, 11 ). The Catholic Orthodox Church admonished the particular Roman Church not twice, but repeatedly; but the latter, despite all the just persuasions of the former, remained stubborn in its erroneous way of thinking and acting.
As early as the seventh century, the erroneous notion arose in the Western churches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Initially, some popes rebelled against this new notion, calling it heretical. Pope Damasus spoke of it in a Council resolution:
"Whoever thinks correctly about the Father and the Son, but incorrectly about the Holy Spirit, is a heretic."
(District last., § 5).
Other popes, Leo III and John VIII, also affirmed this. But the majority of their successors, seduced by their rights to dominance and finding many worldly benefits in it, dared to alter the Orthodox dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit, contrary to the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and also contrary to the clear words of the Lord Himself in the Gospel: "Who proceeds from the Father" ( John 15:26 ).
But just as one error, not considered an error, always leads to another, and one evil begets another, so it happened with the Roman Church. No sooner had this erroneous notion, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, appeared in the West than it itself gave birth to other similar offspring, and gradually introduced other innovations, for the most part contradicting the commandments of our Savior clearly set forth in the Gospel, such as sprinkling instead of immersion in the sacrament of Baptism, the removal of the divine Chalice from the laity and the use of wafers and unleavened bread instead of leavened bread, the exclusion from the Liturgy of the divine invocation of the All-Holy, Life-giving, and All-perfecting Spirit. It also introduced innovations that violated the ancient apostolic rites of the Catholic Church, such as:
"The exclusion of baptized infants from Chrismation and the reception of the Most Pure Mysteries, the exclusion of married persons from the priesthood, the recognition of the pope as an infallible person and the locum tenens of Christ, and so on. Thus, the entire ancient apostolic rite of performing almost all the Sacraments and all ecclesiastical institutions was corrupted—a rite maintained by the ancient, holy and Orthodox Roman Church, which was then the most honorable member of the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."
(Circumferential Order § 5, paragraph 12).
But the main heresy of the Roman Church, not in essence but in practice, is the invented dogma of primacy, or rather the arrogant pursuit of the superiority of the bishops of Rome over the other four Eastern Patriarchs. For the sake of this superiority, adherents of the Roman Church placed their pope above the canons and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, believing in his infallibility. But the extent of this papal infallibility is attested by true history. Pope John XXIII is mentioned in the decree of the Council of Constance, which deposed him:
“It has been proven that Mr. John the Pope is a hardened and incorrigible sinner, was and is a lawless person, justly accused of murder, poisoning and other grave crimes, who often and persistently before various dignitaries asserted and proved that the human soul dies and is extinguished together with the human body, like the soul of animals and cattle, and that the dead will not rise again on the last day.”
The iniquities of Pope Alexander VI and his sons were so monstrous that, according to contemporaries, this pope sought to establish on earth the kingdom of Satan, not the Kingdom of God. Pope Julius II reveled in the blood of Christians, constantly arming Christian nations against one another for his own ends . There are many other examples testifying to the great errors of the popes; but now is not the time to discuss them. With such historical evidence of the corruption of heresy and the errors of the popes, do the papists justly boast of the supposed dignity of the Roman Church? Is it justifiable to disparage the Orthodox Eastern Church, which bases its infallibility not on any one person, but on the teachings of the Gospel and the apostles and on the canons and decrees of the seven Ecumenical and nine Local Councils? These Councils were attended by inspired and holy men from across the universe, and they established everything concerning the needs and spiritual requirements of the Church, in accordance with Holy Scripture. Therefore, are the papists right in elevating their pope above the canons of the Ecumenical Councils for their own worldly ends, considering their pope more infallible?
For all the reasons stated, the Catholic Eastern Church severed communion with the particular Roman Church, as having fallen away from the truth and the canons of the Catholic Orthodox Church. The Roman bishops, however, began with pride and will end with pride. They strive to prove that the Catholic Orthodox Church allegedly fell away from their particular Church. But this is unjust and even absurd. The truth testifies that the Roman Church fell away from the Orthodox. Although the papists, for the sake of imaginary correctness, point out that their patriarchate, during its union with the Catholic Orthodox Church, was the first and most senior of the five; this is for the sake of imperial Rome, and not because of any spiritual dignity or authority over other patriarchates. It was unjust that they also called their Church Catholic, that is, conciliar. A part can never be called a whole; And the Roman Church, before its apostasy from Orthodoxy, constituted only a fifth of the one Catholic Church. The Roman Church should especially not be called Catholic because it rejected the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, following its own erroneous reasoning.
Some are struck by the sheer number and ubiquity of the Latin Church's adherents, and therefore, those who misunderstand the truth think that for this reason the Latin Church should not be called Ecumenical or Catholic. But this opinion is quite erroneous, for nowhere in Holy Scripture is any special spiritual right ascribed to multitude and numbers. The Lord clearly demonstrated that the mark of the true Catholic Church does not lie in multitude and numbers when He says in the Gospel: "Fear not, little flock: for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" ( Luke 12:32 ). There is also an example in Holy Scripture that does not favor multitude. After the death of Solomon, the kingdom of Israel was divided during the reign of his son, and Holy Scripture presents ten tribes as having fallen away, while two tribes, faithful to their duty, did not fall away. Therefore, in vain does the Latin Church try to prove its rightness by its multitude, number, and ubiquity.
The Holy Fathers defined the sign of the Universal Church at the Ecumenical Councils as entirely different: that is, it was decreed conciliarly: to believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and not simply in a universal or universal church. The Roman Church, although it has followers throughout the universe, since it does not faithfully preserve the conciliar and apostolic decrees, but has deviated into innovations and untrue wisdom, does not belong at all to the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church.
Also, those well-disposed towards the Latins reason very erroneously, thinking, firstly, that after the Western apostasy from Orthodoxy, something is supposedly lacking in the Catholic Church. This loss was compensated for long ago by a wise providence—the founding of the Russian Orthodox Church in the north. Secondly, supposedly, for the sake of the former seniority and for the sake of the number of the Roman Church, the Orthodox Church needs to unite with it. But human judgment is one thing, and God's judgment is another. The Apostle Paul clearly says: "What fellowship has light with darkness?" ( 2 Cor. 6:14 )—that is, that the light of Christ's truth can never be combined with the darkness of heresy. The Latins, however, do not want to abandon their heresy, and persist, as the words of Basil the Great , fulfilled in practice for so many centuries, testify about them : "They do not know the truth, and do not wish to know it; “They argue with those who proclaim the truth to them, but they themselves assert heresy ,” as stated above.
Those favorably disposed toward the Latins should instead reflect on the psalm: "I have hated the congregation of the wicked" ( Psalm 26:5 ), and pity those who, for the sake of dominance, avarice, and other worldly goals and gains, have stirred up nearly the entire universe through inquisitions and the wily machinations of the Jesuits, and who continue to stir up and insult the Orthodox in Turkey through their missionaries. The Latin missionaries do not bother to convert native Turks to the Christian faith, but strive to lead Orthodox Greeks and Bulgarians astray, employing all manner of unfavorable means and wiles. Is this not deceit, and is it not malicious deceit? Would it be prudent to seek unity with such people? For this same reason, is it any wonder at the apparent zeal and self-denial of these figures, i.e., the Latin missionaries and sisters of mercy? They are truly pathetic ascetics. They strive not to convert and bring people to Christ, but to their pope.
What else can be said to the questions: Can the Latin Church and other confessions be called the New Israel and the Ark of Salvation? And how are we to understand the Eucharist of the present Roman Church? Only a Church that is faithful to the Orthodox faith can be called the New Israel, but one that is corrupted by heretical wisdom cannot. St. John the Theologian says: “They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they still remained with us: but that they might be made manifest, for they are not all of us” ( 1 John 2:19 ). And St. Paul the Apostle says, “one Lord, one faith” ( Eph. 4:5 ), that is, one true faith, and not every belief is good, as those who have separated from the one true Church foolishly think, about whom St. The Apostle Jude writes: "For in the last time there shall be mockers, walking after their own lusts and ungodliness: these are they that separate themselves from the unity of the faith, and are carnal (soulish), not having the Spirit" ( Jude 1:18, 19 ). Therefore, how will those who are alien to the Spirit of truth be called the New Israel? Or how will they be a haven of salvation for anyone, when both cannot be accomplished without the grace of the Holy Spirit.
The Orthodox Church believes that bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist are transubstantiated by the invocation and descent of the Holy Spirit. But the Latins, as stated above, deemed this invocation unnecessary and excluded it from their liturgy. Therefore, let him who understands this understand the Latin Eucharist.
Another question: if, as has been said, the salvation of other faiths is so doubtful besides the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which is what the Orthodox Church is called and is, then why is this truth not openly preached in Russia? The answer to this is very simple and clear. Religious tolerance is permitted in Russia, and non-believers occupy important positions alongside Orthodox: heads of educational institutions are mostly non-believers; governors of provinces and district towns are often non-believers; regimental and battalion commanders are often non-believers. Wherever a clergyman openly preaches that there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church, the dignitaries of the non-believers will be offended. From this situation, the Russian Orthodox clergy have acquired the habit and ingrained tendency to speak evasively on this subject. And perhaps some, for the same reason, and from constant communication with non-believers, and even more from reading their writings, began to think more leniently in relation to the hope of salvation and other faiths.
Despite the spirit of meekness, peace-lovingness and patience of the Orthodox Church and its pastors and followers, in the West, in previous centuries, followers of various Christian faiths have published, and especially in our times, so many books against the teachings of the Eastern Church that it would be difficult even to count them, let alone evaluate them at their true worth. And although such books are generally filled with slanders, fables, censures, obvious inventions and lies, and especially with poisonous intellectual intricacies, with the obvious goal of creating in Europe a spirit hostile to the Eastern Church, especially to our fatherland, and, having shaken the doctrine of our Orthodox Church, to seduce her followers from the path of truth: but since they are published under enticing titles, in cozy forms, with such typographical neatness that they seem to involuntarily attract the curiosity of readers, then, of course, in our fatherland, where these works penetrate by dark paths, there will be found not a few who, having a superficial understanding of the subjects of Christian doctrine, cannot help but be carried away by thoughts contrary to the truth. Especially have writers of the Latin Church now armed themselves against the Orthodox, proclaiming the dominion of their pope and particular Roman Church over all governments and particular Churches and peoples of the world; At present, the Jesuits in France are primarily engaged in this. Taking advantage of the widespread use of the French language, they are feverishly intensifying their efforts, through writings in this language, to spread their way of thinking, contrary to the doctrine and hierarchical structure of the Eastern Church, everywhere—not sparing for this purpose the most monstrous inventions, obvious lies, and shameless distortions of historical truths. Many educated Orthodox Christians, reading these works in French, and not reading their own works in Russian on Orthodox doctrine, can easily believe these intricate lies in place of a truth they do not fully understand.