Today I am posting the full translation of an amazingly interesting text – Christianity and Judaism – on the issue of the historical role of the Jewish people written by a, now reposed, Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Archbishop Nathanel (Lvov) [“Lvov” is his last name, no reference to the city in the Ukraine]. This has been made possible by the superb translation of this very nuanced text by Edvin Buday to whom I extend my most sincere gratitude (and admiration – this translation is a long and complex piece of work!). The topic is “Christianity and Judaism”. In Russian that would be “Христианство и Иудейство” where the second word, Iudeistvo, could also be translated as “Jewishness” or “that which is of/in the Jewish realm”. What I am trying to convey here is that this is not about modern Judaism (which really is a misnomer and which should be called something like “rabbinical Phariseism” since all modern Judaic denomination are descendants of the sect of the Pharisees) and which is dramatically different from the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (I always call modern “Judaism” the religion of Maimonides, Karo and Luria).
If Yuri Slezkine is right and the 20th century (or even the modern age) was, indeed “The Jewish Century“, and I would personally very much agree with this thesis, then it would be normal to have the topic of Jews and Jewishness as the focus of many interesting discussions. Yet what we observe today is almost the polar opposite. Oh sure, there is a lot of talk about Jews and Jewishness, but most of it is of an appallingly sophomoric level. Not only that, but the many completely different dimensions of this issue are all mushed into one big fat conceptual blob about which a great deal of definitive statements are made without any regards to history, spirituality, culture, psychology, etc. I am personally disgusted and discouraged to see how low these discussions typically can go. Roughly speaking, most of the modern discourse is split between two warring factions:
Group “A”: they would have us believe that Jews are almost non-humans, that by some process unknown to science there is a specifically”Jewish” mentality, mindset, culture and even political identity which is transmitted over the generations from parents to their children and that this unique “thing” trumps both nature (or forms part of it) and nurture. The simple truth is that proponents of this view separate mankind into “Jews” and “non-Jews” which is, of course, a typically racist attitude.
Group “B”: they will have us believe that Jews either have no role at all in society and/or politics or, if they do, then this is an exclusively benevolent one. This is also the group which will tell you with a straight face that “Antisemitism” is a mysterious disease potentially infecting every single human being on the planet, a disease which has no cause whatsoever and from the effects of which Jews must be protected at all costs. Expressing any critical view of anything Jewish, or even asking the wrong questions, is considered by Group B and a clear manifestation of this mysterious disease. The simple truth is that proponents of this view also separate mankind into “Jews” and “non-Jews” which is, of course, also a typically racist attitude.
In other words, all we are given the (pseudo-) “choice” between are two varieties of racist views. The problem is that there is very strong, I would argue. even indisputable, historical evidence, that Jews are not a race or ethnicity (these terms themselves being rather vague to begin with). Furthermore, the kind of worldview and ideology which fosters this kind of notions is always the product of what Russian philosophers have called a “человеконенавистническая идеология” which means a “Man/mankind-hating ideology”.
[Sidebar: for those who have not seen it before, here is my own working definition of racism: racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than within the group. Second, racism is also a belief that the biological characteristics of your group somehow pre-determine your actions/choices/values in life. Third, racism often, but not always, assumes a hierarchy amongst human groups (Germanic Aryans over Slavs or Jews, Jews over Gentiles, etc.). I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all “brothers in Adam”, that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection) of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition). Tribal affiliations and ideological positions are, in contrast to one’s genetic make-up, the result of choices and, like all choices, they are legitimate targets for scrutiny and criticism.]
The ultimate irony is, of course, that the racists in Group A and the racists in Group B are very much alike and their views very much mirror each other, they are just applied in different directions and towards different targets (the other target being the “other one”).
The result of this intellectually sterile and spiritually vitiated environment is that a fascinating and important topic has been reduced to a schoolyard shouting match in which both sides point fingers in anger at each other and verbal fists do most of the “talking”. At the end of the day, both sides end up bloodied and exhausted (and none the wiser).
Jews, Jewishness and Judaism (in one form or another) have existed since antiquity, they have evolved and adapted to their environment and times and, like any other human group, they have dealt with numerous internal contradictions (how sad that nobody nowadays even knows what dialectics are!). At the very least, this means that these topics should be studied on a historical, religious, philosophical, political, cultural, social, economic and many other levels. Studied not to just come up with some slogan to hurl at the “other guy” but studied in order to understand the many, complex and often subtle nuances and dimensions of the topic at hand.
What I am posting today is one such investigation written from a purely religious point of view. Agnostics and atheists are more than welcome to read it, but please understand that the person writing this comes from a background which you could not possibly understand (sorry, no offense intended here, I am just being truthful here). It is also important to stress here that this article was written in 1949, right after WWII were the Nazi atrocities were already well-known to the general public but way before “Group B” managed to shove a psychological gag into the mouth of anybody daring to raising this topic in public.
It is particularly appalling to me to see that representatives of both “Group A” and “Group B” often present themselves, and their views, as “Christian” whereas nothing in reality could be further from the truth! When is the last time you hear any of them refer to the writings of Saint Justin Martyr, Saint John Chrysostome, Saint Cyprian of Carthage or Saint Ephrem the Syrian? The sad truth is that most of these “Christians” (they sometimes refer to themselves as “Cultural Christians”) never heard these names and know absolutely nothing about the religion they mistakenly believe they speak for.
Take the pseudo-Christians of “Group A”: Just a cursory familiarity with the writings of Saint Paul could have suggested to them that Christians “wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Eph. 6:12)” and that “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commandments is what matters” (1 Cor 7:19). In his epistle to Titus Saint Paul also reminded us to “avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain” (Titus 3:9) and yet these modern pseudo-Christians spend a great deal of time investigating who does, or does not, have Jewish blood (as if there was such thing!) and if yes, how much exactly. Talk about foolish, vain and unprofitable “genealogies”!
Do any of those putatively “Christian” “Jew hunters” make any effort at all at understanding their own religion (and I don’t mean Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!) or the writings of the Apostles? Do they make any effort at all to try to acquire the “spirit/mindset” (phronema) of the Fathers? Nope. All they do is play “find the Jew” and then triumphantly place silly little echo signs ((())) around their names.
What kind of pagan kindergarten is that?!
Alas, the pseudo-Christians of Group “B” are no better. The Latins (by that I mean the “Roman Catholics”, an expression which I do not use since the Latins are neither Roman nor Catholic) have now declared Urbi et Orbi that they are expecting the very same Messiah as the Judaics (see here and here). The Pope who, according to Latin dogma, is infallible (when he speaks in his official capacity on spiritual matters) has gone as far as to declare that Judaics are the “elder brothers” of the Latins. Apparently the (putatively) “holy” Father forgot that the Apostles themselves decreed that “If a Clergyman or a Layman should enter a Jewish synagogue, or pray with heretics, let him be excommunicated and defrocked” (Apostolic Canon 64) or, which is more likely, he does not believe that Apostolic Canons have authority over him. The real problem is that Christian tradition very clearly states through the writings of numerous Church Fathers (such as Saint Hippolytus of Rome in his Treatise on Christ and the Antichrist) that the false Messiah the Judaics are waiting for will be the Antichrist!
[Sidebar: this is what Saint Hippolytus wrote about the Antichrist and which Christians used to read at least once a year in church: The Antichrist will be born from a harlot, who will appear to be a virgin, but will be of the Hebrew race, of the tribe of Dan, the son of Jacob; and he will supposedly live as Christ did, and will perform as many miracles as Christ, and will raise the dead. But all of these things—his birth, his flesh, and everything else—will be an illusion, as the Apostle says; and he will then be revealed as the son of perdition, with all power, with signs and deceitful wonders. However, as Saint John of Damascus says, the Devil himself will not be transformed into flesh, but a man who is the offspring of fornication will receive all the energy of Satan, and will suddenly rise up. He will appear good and gentle to all, and then there will be a mighty famine. He will supposedly satisfy the people, will study the Holy Scriptures, will practice fasting, and, compelled by men, will be proclaimed king; he will show especial love to the Hebrew race, restoring them to Jerusalem and rebuilding their temple. Before seven years have passed, as Daniel says, Enoch and Elias will come, preaching to the people that they should not accept him. He will arrest and torment them, and will then behead them. Those who choose to remain pious will flee far away into the mountains; when he finds them, through the agency of demons, he will make trial of them. Those seven years will be cut short for the sake of the elect, and there will be a mighty famine, and all the elements will be transformed, so that everyone will all but disappear.]
Interestingly, Islam also teaches that the next false Messiah will be the Antichrist and that Christ will come back to defeat him. It is ironic that Orthodox Christians and Muslims share a common view while Latins and Judaics share the opposite one. As for Protestant denominations, I will just say that Protestant hardcore Zionists probably outnumber Jewish Zionist by a comfortable margin. Yet these “Christians” all completely overlook such (Antisemitic?) passages of the Scripture as famous “the synagogue of Satan” (Rev 3:9) and “your Father the devil” (John 8:44). Most importantly, they also completely ignore what orthodox Judaics really teach about non-Jews.
What kind of ‘Christian’ either ignores the teachings of his own religion or is ashamed of it?!
The sad reality is that we now live in a post-Christan and pseudo-pagan society (I say pseudo because the original pagans were extremely receptive to the Christian message, modern pseudo-pagans are just about the most incapable of even understanding it). Frankly, most of our contemporaries are simply not equipped to understand a topic as subtle and complex as the amazing history of the Jewish people (understood here, of course, not as a race, but as a *tribe*, i.e. a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon) (official definition: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader). This tribe, however, is hardly uniform phenomenon but an amazingly diverse and complex collection of extremely different sub-groups and individuals: lumping all “Jews” into one category is just as futile and stupid as lumping all Muslims into one or, for that matter, all Christians). And yes, some of these subgroups and individuals have, and still are, wielding enormous intellectual, economic and political power and to pretend like they did/do not or to pretend that this power has always been benevolent is simply ridiculous. Folks who make that kind of silly statements are far more concerned about not alienating (or even pleasing) their sponsors than to remain faithful to faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian” (St. Athanasius).
In sharp contrast all of the above, the text of Archbishop Nathanel (which has never, as far as I know, been translated into English) is a faithful expression of the Christian point of view on this question. I don’t mean to say that everything His Eminence wrote is dogma and has to be accepted as some sort of absolute and indisputable truth, not at all, but it is an attempt to explain something immensely complex while remaining faithful to the mindset/spirit of true Christianity: with compassion and understanding towards all people but with an unbreakable determination and zeal to uphold and pass on the truth as revealed by the Prophets, Christ and the Church.
It seems to me that the Parable of the Compassionate Samaritan ( Luke 10:25–37) not only best illustrates what the correct answer to the question “who is my brother?” is but it also shows us how Christ instructs us all to act towards those who hold beliefs which are opposed to ours or even offensive to us (Jews and Samaritans mostly hated each other). I don’t think that Christ would have welcomed the making of lists of Samaritans, if you see what I mean…
I am personally under no illusions whatsoever and I know that the members of the two groups described above with scoff at it all and, frankly, I am not posting this to convince them otherwise. I am writing for those who seek a truly Christian discussion on a topic of tremendous importance for our times. Contrary to the impression one might get listening to the AM dial, the Christian faith is not one which can be taught, or even intelligently discussed, while driving, with “commercial breaks” or even in a short, 300-400 words text. It is one which is first and foremost lived, experienced, and one which centers on asceticism and prayer, not scholastic deductions. Even a comparatively long(er) text like the one below is but the tiny tip of an immense iceberg hidden from the view of most and preserved by a few. I strongly recommend that those of you who are interested seek out and read all the key Patristic texts on this topic as they are all available online (I recommend starting with Saint Justin Martyr’s “Dialog with Trypho” and then proceeding to Saint John Chrysostome’s “Kata Ioudaion“). I also recommend that we all stay away from the regular verbal slugfests various outlets engage in which inevitably degenerate in more name calling and finger pointing then thinking. Finally, even if you disagree or dislike what you will read there, at least you will be able to tell apart the true Christian view of this topic and the pseudo-Christian ersatz we are offered at every street corner.
Christianity and Judaism
by Archbishop Nathanail (Lvov)
What an old and painful issue are the relations between Christianity and Judaism!
In the historical process of humanity, how many joint instances of guilt, hatred, and blood there are! The massacres of Jews on the one hand and cowardly murders on the other; ghettos here and hatred for the goyim there. Finally, in the last few years we have seen a raging racist theory with its millions of hecatombs by the hand of one of the ‘Christian’ peoples on the one hand and the nearly total capture of all pillars of human history by the Jews, the fully realistic possibility of the Judaisation of all humanity before our very eyes, and its subordination to Judaism on the other.
We would like to speak about the internal roots of this gigantic problem, without an understanding of which we could not hope to understand the processes taking place before our very eyes.
What is Judaism? Is it a shy, innocent little sheep that is unfairly persecuted by all, as it is sometimes presented? Or is it a terrifying hellspawn that does not resemble the rest of humanity at all, as Rozanov , Ford , and the German propagandists would have it?
To answer this question and to understand how untrue both of these representations are, we must recall Jewish history from a Christian point of view, a history that we not for nothing know better than the history of any other people.
Because of His wish to accomplish the salvation of the race of man and graft its feral vine to Himself, immediately after the fall of man the Lord starts the make a selection among humanity by destroying all that by virtue of its deep-rooted perversion cannot serve the cause of preparation for salvation, and, contrariwise, by separating and preparing all that is good.
Any man can save himself, i.e. he can become worthy of the Kingdom of God, and only the common, obdurate sin and stubbornness within him can disturb or halt the process of the maturation of the human soul for the Kingdom of God. And in this case (that of stubbornness in sin), man destroys himself among the living, as in the Lord’s universe there is not and cannot be anything senseless, and the existence of a man who does not mature for the Kingdom of God and who cannot mature is senseless.
The same can also be said of entire peoples. The knower of human hearts saw, by foreseeing the inner being of every separate man and every people and tribe, what kind of man and what kind of people are ready of the process that gives meaning to each life; these he saved and the others he destroyed.
However, there are few who are capable completion of salvation. The process of salvation itself must be completed. This process has been wrought by the Lord, but His human tools were surely necessary. The human share in his salvation is a miniscule one, but it is definitely necessary. Man is not a passive stone, man is the image of God: he is a limited, diminutive likeness of the Endless Absolute and by virtue of the natural attribute of this image he should actively participate in his salvation. A separate person is the best active part of his soul, and all of humanity is the best active part of humanity.
It is with the greatest caution that the Lord selects this best, most active part of humanity and makes a selection of the selection.
The worst part of humanity is destroyed in the waters of the flood: this was all of the spawn of Cain and all descendants of the other children of Adam and Eve who were seduced into mixing with the Cainites. Only the best descendants of the best of the children of Adam are spared: those of Sif.
During the construction of the Tower of Babylon, the nature of humanity receives a new characteristic: a division of tongues. The up until that point united humanity is separated into national cellules in order to prevent evil from spreading across the entire body of humanity.
By using this new, God-granted characteristic of humanity, the Lord sends a most sacred and loyal Chaldean man, who by one word from the Lord leaves his homeland and the house of his father and goes to a new land according to the divine plan, where, by using the Lord’s separation of humanity into nationalities, he will not mix with the surrounding peoples.
What an image, glowing with the highest moral strength presents this chosen one of God, Abraham, to us! Having obediently left for a foreign land and having received Divine covenant for his act, which says that from his descendants the Chosen People will come and that all earthly tribes will be blessed in him; Abraham is ready to sacrifice the one through whom this Divine covenant is supposed to go: his only son Isaac, thus becoming similar to God in his willingness to sacrifice and thereby enlarging his God-likeness.
It is clear that it is on this man’s shoulders that God puts a gigantic responsibility: to be both personally and through his line a tool of the Lord and an active participant in the salvation of the whole race of man.
This is the greatest version of the origin of the Jewish people by virtue of the glory of its design.
In order to fulfil the plan of the Lord, this people needs to have several traits: above all it must be loyal to God. To strengthen this trait, it is led through a series of trials: slavery in Egypt, the wanderings through the desert, the miraculous nourishment from manna, and, finally, the conquest of the Holy Land with the glorious aid of God. It was necessary that this people learned through experience that all its strength is in its God and that it is indebted with an unrepayable debt to this God.
This people should not mix with the other peoples, who had fallen to idolatry. This is why in the first few generations after Abraham this people is tempered not by mixing with other peoples, but by the marriage of every carrier of the fulness of the Divine covenant (i.e. Isaac and Jacob) with women that did not come from the surrounding peoples. And, because he did not fulfil this providential condition, Esau was eliminated and removed from the selection.
This trait of non-mixture with the other peoples and of separation from them has entered the spiritual and corporeal tissue of the Jewish people strongest of all and is its most characteristic feature to this very day.
But despite this non-mixing with other peoples, the Jewish people should not just be the pick of humanity, but also its representative, and should above all keep its unity with all of humanity and guard human versatility within itself, so that all branches of humanity could in this people recognise the fundamental traits that are essential to salvation.
And this we also see in the Jewish people. The Russian, the Black, the Frenchman, and the Japanese all understand the spiritual processes among the Chosen People that the Bible has noted for us. And it is not random chance that the holiest church fathers see in the history of the Jewish people a typological history of every human soul: in the Egyptian captivity and the pharaonic labours they see the condition of the soul when it is enslaved to sin, in the exodus from Egypt liberation from sin, in the forty-year wandering across the desert the process of being cleansed from sin, in the grumbling of the Jews during this process the frequent grumbling of the human soul during those challenges that accompany the cleansing process etc. (“You have preferred, O my soul, the meat of swine and the tempting food of Egypt to the food of Heaven, as did the ungrateful people of old in the wilderness) .
On the other hand, it is thanks to precisely this trait of their nature that the Jews have always been the best spreaders of any movement under any people, both during the early Christian time of preaching and in current anti-Christian propaganda.
In addition, by richly granting all kinds of natural gifts that are necessary for His plan to His Chosen People, the Lord kept them from excessive, unnecessary endowments. For example, this people was not given political power. It was not called upon to build gigantic empires like the Persians, Macedonians, or Romans.
Outside noises and the comparatively insignificant clattering of historical processes would be unnecessary and could draw away the spiritual and corporeal forces of the holy people to lower, external business, while God had something better prepared for them: active participation in the building of the Kingdom of God, the Eternal Kingdom without end, in front of which the vainglory of Alexander, Caesar, and the Romans looks like the fate of an insignificant, tawdry banality and despicable philistinism.
Several currents are especially important in the history of Israel: first, the external preparation for the arrival of the Son of God, although this was a relatively passive and outward affair, which, strictly speaking, any other people gifted with riches could have done. We are speaking here of the creation of a tabernacle, and then a temple, worship, and the entire exterior ritual of life.
But organically linked to this current is the second important tendency in the life of the Chosen People: moral preparation for the arrival of the Son of God in its midst. The ground must be prepared for the meeting. For the reception of the totality of Divine glory it was necessary to prepare by accepting and spreading a pedagogical, preparatory Divine Law, a trimmed heart, and washed ears.
This is especially clear in the example of the highest commandment of love towards one’s enemies.
It is not love that has become natural to the sinful, self-affirmed human heart, but vengeance, vengeance that does knows neither limits nor fulfilment through a long, sinful process from the fall of Adam to the murder of Cain and through many other killings. If one of my teeth has been knocked out, I’ll grind down the face of the perpetrator into mush. If someone has damaged one of my eyes, then I will roast him on a slow fire, cut him up into little pieces, and drink deeply from his sorrows. To use the recent example of the last war, we saw people who had denied Christ kill tens of hundreds, and sometimes even thousands of those they suspected of having killed one friend of theirs; we could see how insatiable the vengeance of man is.
To say without preparation to a man who has become accustomed to unbridled vengeance “love your enemies and do good to those that hate you” would be a hopeless nothing, or, in other words, empty talk. And the Lord does not speak for nothing. He who has created reality and is always creating only reality, He Who Is as He Is, i.e. the genuinely, truly existing Lord is realistic in everything to us. This is why before saying “love your enemies”, it would be necessary to prepare the human heart for this with a limitation to the unbridled fury of hatred. And Moses noted down the words from the Lord: eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.
In such a form, even an unprepared man can accept a limitation to his insatiable, unbridled revenge, as this rule is based on a form of justice that was kept safe from the times before the Fall of Man that is a natural part of every human heart. And if a man accepts a limit to his desire for vengeance, he really accepts it: by his reason, by his will, and by such a fulfilment of his life that the law enters into his very nature, that for one of my teeth that has been beaten out I cannot mutilate a whole man and can only inflict the same thing that he has inflicted on me, that for an eye I cannot subject him to endless torture, when I, having learned to limit my anger, am ready to accept the law of Divine love and can learn to love my enemies.
It is the same in the entire moral law of the Old Testament: it prepared the human heart to be ready to accept the law of Christ.
And this preparation was accomplished among the Chosen People, which played both the role of the crop of humanity and its representative in this matter. If it succeeds among the Jews, it will succeed among all of humanity, for all human traits have been concentrated in this people that the word of God names people par excellence, more human than all other men; it is not by chance that One from this people is called the Son of Man.
The holiest current in this people, in all of humanity, and in all of the world created by God is the one that was fully hidden by the Lord from any foreign, intrusive glances, the one in which by the grace of God from generation to generation the cleansing of the very nature of humanity took place in order to make it capable of receiving the Son of God.
Abraham was a high holiness, but alongside spiritual flight we also see within him the depths of the fall in Egypt and with Avimalekh. The Son of God could not come directly to him and unite with him in most glorious union. But his holiness did not remain barren: with both spirit and flesh he takes part in the fulfilment of the Divine plan, for from his seed God and Man were born. We repeat the same about Isaac, about Jacob, about Jude, about David, and about all forefathers of Christ, who were spiritually and corporeally the ancestors of the Son of Man. We can say this about almost all of the just men of the Old Testament, because they indirectly participated in God’s creation of that spiritual atmosphere that the best flower of humanity could come into by taking the Son of God within Itself.
The heart flutters when it thinks about this, when one considers how in the silence of the province of Palestine, which was guarded by God from the noise of the wide historical roads, the fruit of the most perfect streams of humanity matured, without which the Lord could not come to his people, and how the Holiest Virgin, Whose name is Mary, matured as well.
The first half of the divine plan was dignifiedly and rightly completed by Israel. It safeguarded the true faith among the pagan darkness throughout many ages, it created the Divine temple, which is the image of all temples of all ages, its prophets prepared the ground for the coming of Christ, they prepared the way of the Lord and made his path clear. From its bosom grew the Holiest Virgin and Saint John, about which the mouth of God says: among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist.
Nothing can take away this greatest glory from Israel, from this supernatural greatness of its fate. Even everything that follows cannot destroy the debt of gratitude that humanity owes to Israel. And what can also not destroy this debt of gratitude is, that having taken great glory upon itself, but also the terrible weight of Divine election, Israel carried this yoke for the other peoples. We Russians to a degree know how difficult this yoke is. Our prophet tells us:
Remember: to be the tool of God
Is heavy for earthly creations:
His servants he judges harshly,
And on you, oh, how many
Horrible sins have fallen.
And any other people could not have carried the yoke the same way Israel carried it; any other tribe would have buckled under it, and the royal lines would have far earlier. What the church teachings tell us of Adam and Eve, that, while not justifying their betrayal of God, we also should not dare to judge them, for we would have acted the same way, can also be repeated in an even greater measure about Israel: if, having completed the first half of the plan God had created for them, it betrayed the second half of God’s plan, then every other people in its stead would have acted even worse, even more undeserving of Divine election.
The fall of Israel is not just the tragedy of the nation, but of all of humanity as well, for it was the crop and representative of the whole race of Man. And Israel’s execution of the first half of the Divine plan and its preparation of the coming of Christ is not just its inalienable and never fading glory, but also the glory of all of humanity.
Both during the judgment of Pilate and to the Pharisees who accompanied him Christ said that His Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom: “My Kingdom is not of this world”, “the Kingdom of God is within you” . But those who accepted His Kingdom as a supplement, as a tool to serve that Kingdom are granted external glory and the exterior, earthly rule as well by the Lord, according to the Law that was spoken by Him: “But seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness, and all this will be given to you as well” .
So that the preaching of the Gospels could take place unhindered, the Lord gave the Roman people the opportunity to create a worldly government. So that in the future this preaching could spread across the entire universe, the Lord gave precisely the Christian peoples unseen political and scientific strength.
Of course, if the Chosen Jewish People fulfilled the plan of God, if this whole people, or at least its fundamental, leading, representative part followed Christ, desired communion with the inner Kingdom of God, it would without any doubt have received the most glorious and strong worldly kingdom as an annex. As we know how flamingly, how selflessly the wild Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic tribes accepted the faith of Christ, we can well imagine with what veneration, honour, and service they would have surrounded the firstborn of the peoples in Christ, the people of the kin of the Lord in flesh. The veneration that the Christian peoples showed for Rome and Byzantium can give a small indication of this.
Of course, this was the Divine plan for humanity: His prepared part for the acceptance of the Son of God was supposed to have been cast into the world like a leavening into the dough. With this abundant leavening the whole race of Man would have seen the Kingdom of God and the Lord’s chosen would have gone before all the other peoples, guiding them on the road towards union with God as the vanguard of the Church of Christ.
Its temple was the temple of Jerusalem, the throne of all lands, which would have become the first Christian temple where, instead of the Old Testament shadow and the bloody sacrifice Christ Himself would have made the New Testament sacrifice of His Body and Blood. It is here that New Testament worship would have been developed by integrating the totality of all elements of Old Testament preparatory veneration. The entire people of Judea, which knew the multiplicity of human spirits like no other, would have gone on a mission  of preaching the other, unprepared part of the Gospel of humanity: all the other peoples, too, would have used their God-given talent for this work and all would have entered into communion with the Kingdom of God.
This Divine plan was disrupted by Israel’s betrayal. Although part of it (the holiest part of Israel and humanity that followed Christ), i.e. the apostles, were all Jews and could not have come from any other people, because all the other peoples were not prepared, the main mass of the people, mainly its guiding, representative part, i.e. the priests (who were the official rulers) and the Pharisean rabbis (their real rulers) did not follow Christ but crucified him through the hands of Roman soldiers while calling: “His Blood on us and on our children!” 
Only the First fall of Man, of Adam and Eve, is comparable in significance and inner meaning to this terrible catastrophe that twisted the Divine plan, the Lord’s design for subsequent history of humanity, which had been redeemed and saved by Christ.
Israel has been cast out. To be more precise, itself (the chosen one of the Lord) cast away its chosen nature, refused to serve the One who had chosen him and fulfil His plans.
There were thousands of reasons for this: all temptations, all enticements from the lowest lures of gluttony to the great, proud plans about the creation of a worldwide, earthly kingdom of Jerusalem, which the prophets speak of: all of this was united and mobilised by the unclean one in order to draw Israel from its path, which was to be the chosen tool to save all of mankind.
We will stop for a minute at the most important part, the deepest and most important temptation, the temptation of an earthly kingdom of Israel which was, after all, dreamt of by the best thinkers of the people of Judea, in accordance with the image drawn by the prophets of a kingdom in which swords turn to ploughshares and all tribes of the world will know peace.
The story of the temptation of the first men repeated itself in a significant way. The Lord created men for veneration. Having created them in His image and likeness, He gave them the task to become more and more like Him, become more and more gods themselves, for as the Lord says: “I said: you are gods, and all of you are sons of the most high” , and as Basil of Caesarea said: “I am a beast, but I have received the task of becoming God”.
The devil, however, when he tricks people, says: “Eat of the fruit and you will be as gods”, contrary to the Creator.
The devil does the same with Israel. By marking it as the means by which the Divine Spiritual Kingdom will be established, the Lord (as we have shown) would, of course, have given Israel an earthly kingdom as a small covenant. But the lords of Israel hungered for the earthly kingdom, and, by rejecting the Kingdom of God, fell away from their highest fate of Divine election.
We say that by doing this they disrupted the Divine plan. But this is but partly so.
An individual man and a whole people can disturb and twist the Divine plan for himself or itself. The inner fate of a man or a people is given over to his or its own free will by the Lord. But no one can disrupt the plan of God wholesale. The wisdom and strength of the Lord constantly correct disruptions in His Divine plan, disruptions that are affected by demonic power or confused human will. And all angelic forces and all just men of God are constantly surprised by the Lord’s force and wisdom, which knows how to unceasingly correct everything in the world that was created by Him and thus create the Lord’s ceaseless glory, as John the Apostle says.
The salvation of men must be completed. And Israel should guide this process. But Israel has rejected its mission. How can this be?
Christ warned the rulers of Israel that by their insubordination they will not stop the fate the Lord has given them. God can create the sons of Adam from these very rocks.
And from these rocks, and from tongues, and from peoples, how unprepared they may be for the acceptance of Christ, as from the rocks the Lord raises up a new Israel: the Christian peoples, who spiritually become the children of Adam, for they take his whole inheritance (the cause of Israel) of Divine election and guidance for the salvation of Man upon themselves.
God generously and graciously gave these peoples enormous spiritual and mental strength that are necessary for a most great mission; this is the very same strength that the Lord would have given Israel, had it remained in its station. And these Christian peoples, having taken the place of Israel, carried the world further towards Christ and salvation.
However, if Israel had been prepared for this by all of its earlier history to become the leader of peoples in their salvation, and if pagan crudeness would have been uprooted from it (or it should have at least been uprooted), then these new peoples, this wild olive tree had to come to the Church without being prepared by history, were grafted onto it from a wild, ill-prepared root, and their preparation would have been a long and complex process. And we see how it is really with great difficulty and many great acts of bravery the Christianisation of these people is being completed and how many very strong traces of pagan crudeness, stupidity, and narrow-mindedness remain within them.
Israel enters into a fight with these peoples. By repeating the story of the earliest fallen soul, which hated the race of Man because these despicable, weak, insignificant people, formed into a shape of rotting meat and flesh, were called by the love of God to take his place (instead of a proud and strong spirit), Old Israel also infinitely hates the crude pagan peoples that were called by Divine summons to take its place at the head of the earthly tribes.
Israel begins a fight. This is a very unequal struggle. The world belongs to the Christian and pagan peoples. Israel, having betrayed God, has lost everything that was given by God for the fulfilment of His task except for the inalienable internal gift of God: natural spiritual strength.
This is why the strength of Israel and its weapons of war can only be occult, internal means. Its very deep knowledge of human nature, that was given to it for the preaching of the Gospel but is used by Israel in the opposite way, serves it very well in this struggle.
Israel, having betrayed Christ because of the temptations of pride, greed, and gluttony, is also trying to seduce the peoples that have replaced it by these same lures. Through its hatred of the Christian peoples, it becomes like the fallen one, as its tragedy is similar to the tragedy of the demon: the tragedy of the latter consists of him being a fallen angel, the tragedy of the form in being God’s chosen people that has betrayed God.
The opinion of the Christian Church towards the fallen Israel is very ambivalent. On the one hand, the Church very clearly says that Judaism has not any rights towards the name of Israel in the New Testament and that the Church will become the New Israel: the Chosen Bride of Christ, and that it is to Her and no Judaism that the full scale of covenants and Divine gifts that were promised to the sons of Abraham belongs, for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all righteous ones of the Old Testament belong to the Church and entered into her as a component part. What is more, the Church separately removes Judaism from Its life and from all communion with Itself, so long as the Jews do not repent and come into the Church.
But on the other hand, the best representatives of the Church feel a great sorrow and understand very well the tragic fate of Old Testament Israel. We remember the sayings of apostle Paul, that are pregnant with infinite love towards his dear people that has wandered astray. We find similar sentiments with Basil of Caesarea, a Hellene by descent but an ardent lover of the Old Testament Israel, and also a man who could never remember Abraham without tears and also healed many Jewish souls that came to Christ with his love. Lastly, we can read similar sayings in the works of John Chrysostom and the other holy fathers.
However, as we have said before, in the bosom of the Christian peoples, or, to be more precise, those of the peoples that are being Christened, we still find many things vile and pagan that are incapable of this growing Christian love.
And this is why old Israel drank deeply of the most bitter wine of humiliation among the Christian peoples.
The threatening word of the Lord became full reality for Israel: “If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD; Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance. Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee. Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed. And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the LORD thy God. And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life: In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see. And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you” .
For millenia the Jews had to hide grovel, kissing the lordly hand, flattering and currying favour with stupid and crude medieval Europeans, in which so much primitive paganism remained. This medieval Jew , with a sophisticated soul and Chosen by god for the greatest fate reviled, of course, the crude baron or lord that mocked him.
In our current banishment, we, Russians, can have some understanding of the century-long Jewish tragedy. Some Riurikovich or Gedeminovich  who serves as a chauffeur or a servant for an Argentinian or Venezuelan despises his master the same way that the medieval Jew despises the lord he served; that is, if our modern Russian aristocrat does not defend himself from such an unhealthy and destructive spiritual condition by way of Christian humility, which, woe is us, there is so catastrophically little of among us.
And despite their humiliation, these medieval Jews remembered their election well and carefully guarded proof of their descent from David or Aaron.
In our time, we see how Judaism is conquering new positions one after the other and is capturing nearly all reins, all driving belts of modern humanity.
The creation of a Jewish state, the meaning it immediately acquired in the world that became especially apparent in its instant recognition by the two strongest powers of the world (the US and USSR), and the zeal of both of these colossal states in their drive to gain Israel’s sympathy: all this clearly shows the exclusivity of Israel’s condition and its global importance.
From this point of view, an interview by a correspondent of the Parisian English-language newspaper “The Daily Mail” Jenny Nicholson with Israel’s chief rabbi, mister Herzog, and her further report on the subject.
Nicholson writes: “Mr. Herzog, the chief rabbi, lives in a smart modern house in Jerusalem. Through the open doors one can see his secretaries with their black beards and black hats, working behind their writing desks.
I was guided upstairs into his library, which was filled with gigantic Jewish books. The rustle of light footsteps could be heard: mr. Herzog entered the library: renowned learned rabbi in black clothes and with a long, gray beard that was separated in two halves.
His religion did not allow him to shake my hand:
– “The only woman whose hand I have shaken is the queen of the Netherlands”,- he said.
A Jewish girl in a red sweater brought Turkish coffee and crackers, the rabbi lit a cigarette and offered me another, and began to speak of ancient prophecy:
– “The new state of Israel, the return of the Jews to Palestine, all this is a preparatory step for the return of the Messiah”, – he said. – “The coming of the Messiah will not be a solely Jewish event, but it will have meaning for the whole world”.
– “But the prophecy tells us that the Messiah will come from the House of David, and how many can now pretend a descent from the house of David?” – asked Jenny Nicholson.
Herzog smiled and dusted the cigarette ash from his clothes.
– “I was recently invited to the christening (i.e. the circumcision) of a child, the father of which is a pretender to the throne of David.”
According to an article printed in the English-language Israeli Newspaper “The Palestine Post”, thousands of Israeli citizens can prove their descent from the House of David. The most well-known pretender is Samuel Solnik, a young dentist from Poland.
Solnik royally lifted up his uncrowned head when I came to visit him. He spread out his moustache and said:
– “Tradition is in the blood of the Jewish people. We make links to that moment in the past where we left off. Why shouldn’t we reinstate the monarchy?”
However, he added that the time wasn’t yet nigh:
– “Most importantly, we don’t yet have Israel. And the King of Israel should rule in his capital.”
Dr. Solnik serves as a dentist in a camp of Egyptian prisoners of war, but he spends sabbaths at home in Nafanay, which lies to the north of Tel-Aviv. There is no difference between this family and other middle-class ones, except for the fact that the eldest son of mr. Solnik is called ‘Melek’, or ‘king’ in school. What is more, no other dentist in the world has such special literature as mr. Solnik his, and he gladly shows his correspondence with persons of authority that show his official right to claim descent from the House of David.
All Jewish scholars are in agreement that anyone who can prove his descent from Abravanel is a descendant of the House of David. Our Solnik is methodically proving the emergence of his line from Samuil Abravanel, who in 1391 “arrived in Seville and worked as a tax collector”.
– “But in this case, you should hold the title of ‘Melek’.”
– “No”, – Solnik answers with a royal pose, – “I abjure all my rights for my son. I declare all my claims in his name”.
His son is called Emmanuil, in accordance with the prophecy of Isaiah: “and they will call Him Emmanuil”.
Emmanuil, a pretty, pale boy around five and a half years old, is playing with his younger brother, who is trying to pull of the golden crown of David that his brother is carrying on a necklace.
– “The chances of the coming of the Kingdom of Israel are very great, and it might come soon. We might have a large monarchist party.” The Continental Daily Mail, No. 16971-1949.
Of course, all of this isn’t serious yet. In mr. Solnik’s candidature to become King of Israel, Emmanuil, there is a comic element. This is just a test. But the question has already been put forward and has been embedded in the order of the day and is standing in line in our modern life.
And what awesome, holy words there are for us here: “King of Israel, Son of David, He who is from the House of David, Who will sit on the throne of His Father David, and He Who has the obedience of all peoples for all time, Emmanuil”. From our youngest years, when the first considered impressions started filtering through to our consciousness, these names have become close, known, and infinitely dear to us, and we know well of Who they speak, on Whose cross “King of the Jews” was written, Who the people desirous of spiritual and physical healing turned to with the sacramental cry: “Son of David, have mercy on us”. We know Who Emmanuil is.
Have we made a mistake? Are all these titles not related to Him, but to someone else who is yet to come, who will come soon, as the honourable mr. Herzog and mr. Solnik say, as well as all the leading circles of Israel?
There is nothing unexpected to us here. We all knew this long ago. We knew that the entire glory, all actions, everything that has been completed by Him will be contested by him, the other that the holy Gospels tell us about: “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive” .
The signs of this other that will come “instead of Christ” (in Greek, ‘instead of’ is expressed as anti-) are described in many places in the Scripture, mostly by the apostle Paul in his 11 messages to the Thessalonians and in the Apocalypse of Saint John the Evangelist. A less well-known description of the calls of the Antichrist is found in the Synaxarium in the week before the Great Fast, which should be read in all churches on the Sunday before Shrovetide, but is actually only read in but a few monasteries.
It is written: “The Antichrist cometh and is born”, as says the holy Hippolytus of Rome , “from a deplorable woman and self-styled virgin from the Jews of the tribe of Dan, and like he walks and passes his life in the way of Christ (i.e. he imitates Christ in his exterior appearance), and he will complete miracles, and very much like Christ will he act, and he will resurrect the dead. But he will do everything dreamingly (i.e. only in spirit, not in reality). And then there will open calamities in all strength and significance and false miracles. For it is not the devil himself who becomes flesh, but a man born from sin, who will accept all the works of Satan and suddenly stand. He appears good and shy to everyone. And there will be a great hunger. And he will satisfy the people. And he will learn the writing. And he will demand from the people and declare himself king. And he will greatly love the Jewish people, and he will go to Jerusalem and raise their temple there… This is how suddenly like lighting from heaven the coming of the Lord will be”.
For nearly two thousand years nearly all Christian generations read these lines, and although they immutably believed them, they still seemed far off, as if covering themselves in the farthest darkness of time. And all of this has now directly come to us, crashed down on us, become the order of the day.
Rejected and having rejected the path of God, Israel came to want to reach without God, alongside God, against God, by its own hand that what is fathers dreamed of, that wat was promised to Israel by God, what God would have given him if it followed the path marked by God, but what it wanted to reach on the contrary path: a worldly Kingdom of Israel, rule over all the peoples of earth, as the prophecy says: ” And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee… The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel” . All of this was promised to the children of Israel if only they kept to the path of the Lord, and they have gotten nearly all of this themselves while having rejected the Divine path. Before our very eyes, the strong (the strongest of this world) forgetting and leaving behind their hostility and competition rush to bow down to the new-born Israel.
How did Israel do this? In what way? Why?
Just by the strength and influence of world capital, which is inclined to them? Or the action of secret forces? Or by cultural and natural superiority over the other peoples? Or by some other, deeper ways?
Of course, Jewish capital, secret forces, and natural gifts play a role in this most import phenomenon of our time.
But this is not the main reason; instead, it is because the Christian peoples themselves have set out on the road of the old Israel and have come to internally resemble it.
What is the meaning of the Jewish tragedy?
In the fact that they could have become God’s tool for the salvation of the world and had all gifts for this, but did not want to.
What is the meaning of the modern apostasy of the current peoples?
It is the same meaning. They have gone the same way. Those called to the place of the old Israel, having to that end become the New Israel and the coryphaeus of all humanity, guiding it to Christianisation and salvation have rejected their calling and their election, and, in this way, have become internally Judeaised.
This is a complex and multiform process. Strictly speaking, it began immediately after the establishment of the Church by manifesting in every apostate of Christianity; for example, it appeared especially strongly in Julian Apostata, in whom we can very easily recognise the most characteristic traits of the modern man of state who fiercely hates and despises Christianity and who rallies in a toga of tolerance and apathy.
But this process took on special strength in the West in the era of the Renaissance (and for us from the time of Peter the Great), when, in its greed for bodily delights and unnaturality in everything, European humanity on the eve of its new great mission that was developed by earlier generations, on the eve of the discovery of lands on the other side of the ocean did not do its duty, but moved towards abandoned paganism and rejected Christ.
This process grew even stronger with the French Revolution and, finally, developed into an open rebellion against God and Christ in our revolution.
But there can be no return to paganism. Paganism is a stage that has been passed. The pagan did not now Christ, did not meet Him. But, having met Him, one must immediately either accept Him or reject Him.
And the peoples that reject Christ are internally becoming kin to the Jews, who also made this choice and rejected Christ two millennia ago.
And the Lord, Who “did not have mercy on natural branches”, does not, of course, create hypocrisy for the new peoples that have been called to replace Israel.
We see how before our eyes the primacy of the European peoples and their status as leaders of the race of Man is being taken away from them, when this position as a result of the betrayal of Christianity by the Europeans has lost its inner meaning.
The European peoples were called to replace Israel for Christianisation and spreading communion with Christ, because Israel did not want to lead people on the Divine path.
But, by changing betraying this duty and internally becoming similar to Israel, which had rejected Christ, the European peoples are really losing all their rights of whatever provision of guidance to the race of Man. By betraying Christ, they are entirely naturally coming under the leadership of that people, which has been given infinitely more gifts for the guidance of peoples*.
And this people, which has been called by the plan of God to become the leader of the saved peoples on their way to salvation instead becomes the leader of dying peoples on the path to ruin, which they started on by their own free will by having rejected Christ.
This is natural and inescapable. The attempts of the Germans to take the place of the Jews as leaders of the world were both comical and pitiful.
It is possible that those who understand the tragic fate of Israel better than anyone are we, Russians, for we have betrayed Israel in the fulfilment of the plan on our own plot of land and in securing the unspoiled purity of the Divine truth, i.e. Orthodoxy.
The other peoples were granted other gifts in this general Divine plan, some of them which Israel never had. The Roman people was a people of the building of state and judicial thought, the Greek people of philosophy. The Celtic and Germanic peoples have exclusive technical gifts. These are all talents that can be used in service to the Kingdom of God, but only peripherally, not essentially. These other peoples are all more skilled than us in this.
But, like old Israel, perhaps in a lesser degree than it but to a greater degree than all the other peoples, we, Russians, are gifted with the most important, most spiritual gift of the entire vision of God: the gift of heightened religiousness. We, like Israel, are an extraordinarily religious people. All our reactions are religious. Our patriotism is religious, we fall in love religiously, we think and feel religiously.
This is why our betrayal of God, like Israel’s betrayal, is accompanied by such a terrible tragedy, by endless suffering, by despair.
When other peoples betray their religious mission, they keep something neutral, while we, like Israel, remain with nothing except another form of religious service, a terrible one, a satanic one.
This is why we, like Israel, are a formidable people. We can be fully penetrated by God, and for this reason, like Israel, we can be fully penetrated by the adversary: by satanic powers.
This is why in the current times it is in Russia, which once was Holy Rus’, the grin of Satan is best visible.
This is why we share Israel’s fate: focusedly hated and reviled by the other peoples. We, like Israel, could save ourselves and the other peoples, and have betrayed this duty. They instinctively recognise this and our paying us with hatred and disgust. Truly, the hand of the Lord is on use and Israel.
It is interesting, that this hatred and contempt of the Jews (i.e. antisemitism, although, of course, this isn’t about the Semitic nature of the Jews; no one hates the other Semites, i.e. the Arabs and Assyrians) does not lessen, but even grows among the people who are losing Christianity and are practically under the control of Israel.
With full Christianisation antisemitism disappears. In our monasteries, for example, there was no antisemitism and it has never been strong among the clergy. Firstly, Christianisation removes the main, subconscious reason for hatred of the Jews: for a dying world sees in them, like in those who guide it on the road to ruin, those who are guilty of suffering and destruction and throws its share of the general guilt onto them, as the first people did during the Fall of Man, while the world that is saving itself has no reason to hate anyone. First, the Church, which soberly and reasonably looks at this big problem and understands it, never and not under any circumstances condoned antisemitism, and even though it is hunted to death by the Jews will not do so.
Antisemitism is not only just as sinful as any other form of hatred, but as hatred par excellence, to the highest degree. In this essay we are trying to show why the whole spectrum of human properties is embedded in the Jews, and why those who laugh of the ‘kikes’ and hate them can be told in a Gogolian way: “Who are you laughing at? You’re laughing at yourselves! Who do you hate? You hate yourselves!” .
But while it fully unconditionally condemns antisemitism, at the same time the Church fought and will continue to fight to the very end Judaism  and the Judiciasation of life, which, as we are trying to show, is ontologically related to a betrayal of Christ and with the rejection of the Divine plan for the salvation of mankind.
Others who are either confused or slander it sometimes try to present this battle as a kind of antisemitism. But the Church emphasises that this isn’t a battle of flesh and blood, but against the ancient enemy of God and man, against him who tries to use every man and every people against God.
The fundamental principle of the Christian struggle against Jewism was marked at the dawn of Christian history by saint Ignatius of Antioch (who was apparently a Jew himself, which is why, according to the teachings of the Church, he is the same child that Christ placed among the apostles and of whom he said: ” Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes Me” .
He writes: “Do not accept Judaism. If someone preaches the Jewish law to you, do not listen to him”. Further on, while explaining that this is not a question of personality and that there is no antisemitism here, he says: ” For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchres of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men. Flee therefore the wicked devices and snares of the prince of this world, lest at any time being conquered by his artifices, grow weak in your love” .
This is the main point of that struggle: to not cool one’s love. As long as the Christian heart hasn’t cooled, nothing foreign can nestle in it: when it has cooled, exterior things will inevitably come to stick to it, mainly the dirtying breath of a people that leads others to ruin.
Only the rebirth of the spiritual strength of the Christian peoples can be healing and salvation.
There is no other way.
And, by moving on this path, we save ourselves and we save them, the Jews.
For having become similar to Judaism by rejecting Christ, we, by finding a cure for this horrifying spiritual condition, will not just find it for ourselves, but for all branches of humanity that are infected with one common disease: apostasy.
But we need to clearly accept that the return to the road of salvation from ruin is a complex and difficult affair, more difficult and complex than the first conversion to Christ by the pagans. We can find confirmations of this in daily life.
From history we know how brightly, how irresistibly, how flamingly the pagan tribes accepted Christianity. Even today, such examples are encountered during missionary practice, although, strictly speaking, there are now no more peoples that are entirely uninvolved with Christianity. All over the world, at least the leading, main part of the peoples is already familiar with Christianity, has met Christ, and if they did not follow Him, they have entered into communion with the rejection of Him. This is why even among officially pagan peoples, cases of fiery communion with Christ have become even rarer than in antiquity.
There has never been such a tempestuous, fiery impulse towards Christ among the Jews, with the exception of the first years of Christianity, when, through the preaching of the apostles, that part of the Jews that did not refuse Christ turned to Christianity, the part, that like no other share of humanity of all earlier history was ready for the immediate acceptance of Christ. After this short, early period, conversion to Christianity from Judaism has remained and remains to this day a difficult, complex, and painstaking act, which is related to a great act of strength, suffering, labour, and pain. This was Saul’s conversion to apostle Paul. These are also the conversions of saint Epiphanius of Salamis, of Cyriacus of Jerusalem, of Constantine of Sinada, and of many others. All these conversions were a complex and difficult affair, but, having been crowned with success, they gave the Church great saints and guides.
The same can also fully be said of modern missionary work among peoples that count or counted themselves as Christians. Missionary work among them is linked to labour, great feats of faith, and diligence that are no less than amongst the Jews, internally because of the same reason.
A serious objection to this scheme of ours can consist of the only massive, tempestuous, and fiery move towards Christ of our time, which we find among the Russian people both at home and, during the war, in German captivity. Meanwhile, the Russian people, being, as we have pointed out, in the greatest sense of the word a religious people, should have been the least capable of returning to Christ after rejecting Him.
The thing is, that those among the Russian people who are guilty of betraying Christ in a significant manner were only the upper layers of society that weren’t our real ruling groups: between the upper layers and the people there existed a gap, and this is why our people is not fully responsible for the sin of its upper levels.
Modern power just tore our people away from Christ by way of brute force, and consequently, the most terrifying moment of apostasy was not present by a long way: a reluctance and refusal to follow the way of Christ. This element was only present when the upper layers of Russian intellectual society moved away from the Church. And we know very well and are convinced with every step, that missionary work for the re-Christianisation of the Russian intelligentsia is just as difficult, painstaking, and ineffective as missionary work in the West-European sphere. Because of this reason, the Russian intellectual surrenders to Christianity with the same difficulty as the Jew and European.
The Russian intelligentsia, the West-European climate, and the Jewish sphere are, internally speaking, the same phenomenon. And the entire hope for saving the world from the abyss developing before us and from the intolerable pain they suffer from lies in the Christianisation of that sphere, in ungrateful, torturously slow, and painstaking work to preach Christ among the people who have already rejected Him once: that is, among the Jews, Europeans, and Russian intelligentsia.
Does this work have any chance of succeeding? Can we hope for its success? Is a return to Christ after having betrayed Him possible at all?
Nothing is impossible for God. Daily experience teaches us that returning to Christ after betraying Him is possible. For if this was impossible, almost no one could be saved. For every sin is a betrayal of Christ and is only different from modern apostasy in quantity: it is shorter and less stubborn. And every one of us can confess to God with endless gratefulness and feel, how easy, how simply, how, without leaving a trace, our Kind Lord washes our sins from us. ” Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow. “Come now, let us settle the matter,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool” .
Here it is important to note, that the ancient prophet is speaking to Israel, and through it to all humanity.
Clear evidence of how deep our hope for the coming of old Israel to Christ (and subsequently for the resurrection of mankind) can be found in the words of the apostle Paul, which, after everything that has been said here, come in a very timely fashion, as much of what has been said in this article is inspired by that text of the holy apostle.
“I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob”” .
Of course, the extended meaning of these words is not fully clear to us. It is now that we have too little information to believe in the coming of Christ and the salvation of Israel. Overcome by pride because of what it has achieved with its own forces against God (that is, global rule), it seems like Israel is least of all considering repentance and reconciliation with Christ. On the contrary, it inspires and guides the storming of Christian fortresses.
But who knows the inner man except for He who has created him? Having reached the desired Kingdom of Israel, will Israel, which holds a soul that is meant for communion with God, be able to content itself with the philistinism of the building of a worldly government? Will it not dart away from this mirage that opens itself before it and devours its past towards the Holy Israel that it has abandoned? For it is impossible to seriously chose between Christ and Solnik, between the images of the Kingdom that were drawn by the prophets and the Israeli government of mr. Weizmann, Herzog, and others, even if the leaders of all other countries would obey them. For the devil is always vulgar, however he might try to prove otherwise or craft something great and beautiful from himself.
In any case, we know one thing very well: however the rebirth of the world and the spiritual strength of humanity might start, from the bosom of Israel or from the depths of the Christian countries, this rebirth will be shared by both of them. The world has already inwardly merged. It already lives by the same thoughts, the same fears, and the same problems. We, the banished Russians that are scattered all over the world, feel especially strongly that the world has merged into one and feel a fear that is common to all humanity, one that is linked to our country and its tragedy. This fear links humanity both horizontally (from pole to pole) and vertically (all layers of the population), for the lives of all depend on one or the other outcome of coming events.
This merging into one of all humanity should reach full strength in order for that final division of the centuries should become clearer, which is even now clearly noted: for Christ and against Christ, of those who save themselves and those who fall. This last division will not be related to any national or social loyalty: ” Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left” .
And among the saved there will be: “Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. And a great multitude of man that no one could count of all tribes and peoples stood before the throne and before the Lamb in white robes and with palm leaves in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb” .
* According to the plan of God, Israel was supposed to lead peoples to Christ, and all other peoples were to follow Israel on this path in roughly the same way, that our Russian people followed the Greeks to the Church of Christ, how the European peoples followed Rome, how the pagans followed Irish missionaries, and how the Europeans were followed by the peoples of Asia, Africa, America, and Australia.
But this position of guidance of people does not, of course, means rule over them. Apostle Peter warns: “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” . Christian missionaries served the peoples that they were enlightening by the faith. Colonial rule over enlightened peoples is a monstrous phenomenon that developed in the times when the Europeans started to betray their high calling more and more.
But guiding peoples on the road to destruction, their Antichristianisation, will, of course, be related to their enslavement. The Lord rules people in no other way than freely, for He wants them to come to Him from their own free will. This is why the process of coming to him should be free. The devil, however, want to enslave, and this is why the process of going to the devil is related to coercion and enslavement.
: Vasily Vasilievich Rozanov (1856 – 1919) was a Russian philosopher, known for his unorthodox union of Christianity with a philosophy of sexual activity and eroticism. Although he is sometimes considered to be an anti-Semite, Rozanov himself rejected such allegations.
: The reference is to Henry Ford (1863 – 1947), American captain of industry and automobile magnate. He wrote a violently anti-Semitic book called The International Jew and promoted the Protocols of the Elder of Zion in the media.
: Ode 6 of the Great Canon of Saint Andrew of Crete.
: Aleksey Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804 – 1860) was one of the founders of the Slavophilic movement and was also an able Orthodox theologian. The (somewhat shoddy) translation of the poem is mine.
: Luke 17:21. All Bible translations have either been sourced from the New International Version or the King James Bible. As the most reverend archbishop has seen fit to sometimes abridge the text somewhat, I have in certain places been forced to amend the translations.
: Matthew 6:33.
: The Russian word used here, подвиг, has no direct translation to English and can mean ‘feat’, ‘great act of faith’, or ‘supreme achievement’. I have sometimes translated it to its direct meaning and sometimes as ‘mission’.
: Matthew 27:25.
: Psalm 82:6.
: Deuteronomy 26:68.
: The Russian word used here, жид, is an older name for a person of the Jewish faith. Now, however, it is highly offensive and is the Russian equivalent of the English ‘kike’. The most reverend archbishop uses it here in order to invoke a feeling of sorrow for the lamentable position of the Jews in medieval Europe in contrast to their improved position nowadays, for which he would have used the word еврей.
: These are two royal lines: the Riurikovichi are descendants of Riurik, the founder of Kiev Rus’, while the Gedeminovichi are descendants of Gedeminas, a Lithuanian king who transformed his land into a great power which later merged with Poland.
: John 5:43.
: Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235) was an early Church martyr who came into conflict with the Bishop of Rome. However, he was reconciled with the Church when he was martyred after being sentenced to harsh labour by Emperor Maximinus Thrax.
: Isaiah 60:10.
: Lines from Nikolai Gogol’s play The Government Inspector, which can be found here.
: The most reverend archbishop here uses the term Иудейство, which can be translated as ‘Judaism’. However, the main stress is on the past and present behaviour of the Jews, not the entire religion and the Jews as an ethnic group.
: Mark 9:37.
: Epistle to the Philadelphians 6.
: Isaiah 1:16-18.
: Romans 11:13-26.
: Matthew 24:40.
: Revelation 7:5-10.
: 1 Peter 5:2.
Translated from the Russian by Edvin Buday.
Archbishop Nathanail (before his elevation: Vasily Vladmiriovich Lvov) was born on the 30th of August in Moscow. When he was thirteen years old he became the oldest man in his family , which fled the Red Army from Tomsk to Manchuria (China). There, he finished the Harbin High School (1922), worked as a labourer on the Eastern China railroad (1922-1929), studied theology in the Saint Vladimir Institute (1928-1931), and was the cell-attendant and secretary of the Kamchatkan missionary and archbishop Nestor (Anisimov).
In 1929 he became a monk and received the name of Nathanail, after which he was made a hieromonk. He worked as a catechetist in a children’s shelter at the Harbin Almshouse. From 1935 to 1936, the future archbishop undertook missionary work in the state of Kerala in Southern India. From 1937 to 1939 he was the leader of the Orthodox mission in Sri Lanka. On his return to Harbin, he was elevated to the station of archimandrite, and in 1939 he entered the Brotherhood of Saint Job of Pochaiv in Ladomirova in the Carpathian Mountains (Slovakia) where he also was the helper of the monastery’s abbot.
In 1945, he was in charge of the Resurrection Cathedral in Berlin. During the Second World War, father Nathanail actively participated in the spiritual work of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) on USSR territory that was occupied by the Germans. Near the end of the war, he took part in the saving of so-called ‘displaced persons’, i.e. Soviet citizens who had voluntarily left communism with the Germans. In accordance with the Treaty of Yalta that was signed by Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill in February 1945, all these persons were supposed to return to the USSR (in case of their refusal by force), where in a best-case scenario they would be sent to a special settlement, and in a worst-case scenario to their deaths or to the GULAG (which would also mean death). To Stalin, they, like prisoners of war and other Soviet citizens that had seen the West, they were “traitors to the motherland”. Many of them were ardent anti-communists and did not want to return. Archimandrite Nafanail did not have to fear extradition, because he had never been a citizen of the USSR. But he went to an English colonel who was overseeing the extraditions (this took place in the English zone in Berlin) and said, that all 600 displaced persons who were located in a camp close to Hamburg were actually Polish citizens.
In 1946, metropolitan Anastasi (Gribanovsky) elevated archimandrite Nathanail to the rank of bishop, and the ROCOR Hierarchical Synod gave him the position of bishop of Brussels and Western Europe.
After 1951, the reverend Nathanail headed the bishopric of North Africa from Tunis. According to some sources, around four thousand Russians were living in the region at the time. On the 11th of October 1953 he completed the foundation of a church.
From 1954 onward, the reverend father presided over the Orthodox parishes in Mannheim and Berlin. In 1966 he was made the abbot of the monastery of Saint Job in Munich.
From 1971 onward, he temporarily oversaw the bishopric of Austria, and in 1976 he became the bishop of Vienna and Austria. In 1981, he was elevated to the position of archbishop.
He served heartfeltly. His voice was clean and clear, and all who visited one of his services felt the height and beauty of his masses. During Easter, his happiness about the resurrected Christ was so great that it beamed out to all those present. Every parishioner felt that the most reverend father’s exclamation of “Christ is risen!” was directed at him or herself.
The most reverend father Nathanail was especially famous as an excellent preacher. Through his short conversations he opened hearts and led many to Christ the Saviour. He had wide knowledge of various areas of human thought, especially the theology, philosophy, and literature of Russia and the world. He was the author of many articles that were published in different journals of the Russian emigration, as well as many biographies in his “Lives of the Saints”, which were published by the Munich monastery.
He was the editor of the “Orthodox Voice” in Manchuria (1934-1937), “Orthodox Rus’” in the Carpathians (1939-1945), the journal “Youth in Christ” (1939-1944), “Orthodox Digests” in Paris (1947-1949), “Voice of the Church” in Germany, (1955-1964), and “Messenger of the Orthodox Cause”, also in Germany (1959-1963). He was the author of many articles in the journals “Heavenly Bread”, “Frontier”, and “Gun-bao” (Harbin), as well as in various European and American publications. He was also published under the pseudonym A Nelskiy.
On the day of the holy martyr Demetrios of Thessaloniki, Saturday 8 November 1986, the most reverend archbishop Nathanail peacefully passed away after a long sickness in the monastery of Saint Job in Munich.
Translated from the Russian by Edvin Buday.
: the most reverend archbishop’s father, Vladimir Nikolaevich Lvov, was a scion of the ancient and noble Lvov family. From the third of March until the twenty-fourth of June 1917 he was oberprocurator of the Holy Synod, i.e. an ersatz minister of religion and the Orthodox Church. After the collapse of the White Armies, he busied himself with the affairs of the Orthodox Church in Tomsk until he was arrested in 1927. He died of a heart attack in the Tomsk prison hospital in 1930.
Just wanted to comment on something you’ve said in the opening as a Roman Catholic. (Though putting aside the ‘neither Roman nor Catholic’ issue for now…)
Historically, neither the Catholic Church nor the Popes have ever considered that the ‘Messiah’ the current modern Rabbinic Jews are awaiting is the same.
This has sadly been a modernist re-intepretation thanks to the controversial Vatican Council II, which may have been warned about by the Queen of Heaven at Fatima.
John XXIII buried the 3rd Secret of Fatima and refused to reveal it in 1960, and instead put all efforts towards his project – The Vatican Council II – which in his erroneous unbridled optimism believed he could ‘re-market’ the Church in a more pleasing way to the modern world. A Council for which he invited all opinions to be introduced, including those of heretics and other suspect theologians, as well as Protestant and Orthodox observers, a concessionary Ostpolitik being that the Russians could attend provided he guaranteed that Communism would not be condemned, in total obstinate disobedience to the condemnations of his predecessors and the Virgin Mother of God at Fatima.
There, a more ‘gentle’ approach was encouraged for the Church’s mission, that would seek friendlier terms and dialogue with other religions and soften its approach, not only towards Jews, Protestants and the schismatic Orthodox, but pagans as well.
Thus in our times in a complete 180 in light of how the Catholic Church has typically handled the way it addressed the Jews (which was always to convert and accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah), a new crafty language and doublespeak was adopted in order to create a more politically correct approach by straining dogmatic teachings and vague statements so that ‘common ground’ could be found in order to placate the Jews.
You can see this in the NYTimes article you linked to, where shoddy attempts are made by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, himself one of the modernist-leaning periti of the Council, and who would later become Pope Benedict XVI, is attempting to ignore the actual context of what the Jews actually believe about their Messiah to co-equivocate commonalities by having his cake and eating it too. He therefore chooses his words carefully to attempt to spin the idea that the modern Jews seem unaware that the Messiah according to Christians is Christ Whom was crucified, and Who will come again as Judge during the End Times.
So at best it is spin at its finest in order to try and make nice with the Jews. But it is also a lie, for Ratzinger knew fully well that the modern Jews aren’t confused about it, they Reject Jesus Christ, and are awaiting for a Messiah different from Him.
Ratzinger then therefore abandons Christ’s commission to call Jews to convert and baptise them, by claiming that somehow this will take care of itself during the 2nd Coming and that they’ll somehow be fine. Which IS WRONG and was always taught this way by the Catholic Church until 1960s and Vatican Council II which many Catholics see as a diabolical disorientation prophesied as the coming ‘Great Apostasy’ that would infiltrate the Church as warned by the Mother of God.
This same strategy taken towards the Jews, of concessionary double-speak language for the sake of ‘peace’ and ‘unity’ is Rejected by those ‘Latins’ who still hold to the true faith and we quote the Papacies of the past and the saints and even Saint Hippolytus and St. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and other Saints and the Fathers to demonstrate beliefs of the Early Church era that the Anti-Christ could very well be of ‘Jewish’ origin.
Perhaps your statement was not meant to be a blanket generalization against all Latins/Roman Catholics, but I just wanted to clarify that.
We have evil confused men running the Church today. Some of them even taking the same ‘Vatican Council II’ mindset and now making concessions towards adulterers, abortionists and homosexuals. But of course it would be just as wrong to state or infer or mislead that somehow the Latins/Catholics are a ‘group’ that always accepted adultery/abortion/homosexuality despite that in our more modern era you will hear such equally absurd statements and concessions being made to such people.
I hope that clarifies this for you. Just as there are examples of orthodox and heretics amongst the laity and clergy of the Orthodox, so too the same problem exists within the Catholic Church, and in our times, as warned by the Mother of God and those who’ve read the 3rd Secret of Fatima, that such errors would infect even those at the very ‘top’ hinting obviously at the Papacy, which harkens back to Pope Leo XIII who in a vision saw that God would allow Satan 100 years to test the Church just as God allowed Satan to test Job, and that this would involve striking the Pastor (the Pope) so that the sheep should be scattered, and thus he composed the Prayer to St. Michael after every Mass; a prayer, which would (surprise) be discontinued in the era of Vatican II and the new de-Catholicized Mass of Paul VI which was crafted by Archbishop Anibale Bugnini, who was highly suspect of being a Freemason. It is also why, not coincidentally, John XXIII, upon reading the 3rd Secret of Fatima before locking it away and disobeying God, remarked “This does not concern my pontificate.”
We already see the errors trickling downhill to our day under the present Pope Francis, who to make more overtures to the Anglicans and the Orthodox is now introducing concessions towards adultery and potentially doing away with the discipline of unmarried clergy, and allowing individual regional Bishops Councils more free reign to ignore discipline and even dogma and basic morality. (This is all assuming Francis is a valid Pope after the suspicious abdication of Benedict). So the Catholic Church is in a right mess with many ranking members likely apostates, certainly heretics, and many holding office illicitly.
The other details are a story for another time, but I hope I can clarify the matter with regards to you possibly grouping all Catholics under ‘Group B’ which is not at all the truth, so even if that wasn’t your intention, I hope nobody else is misled.
Historically, neither the Catholic Church nor the Popes have ever considered that the ‘Messiah’ the current modern Rabbinic Jews are awaiting is the same. (…) I can clarify the matter with regards to you possibly grouping all Catholics under ‘Group B’ which is not at all the truth, so even if that wasn’t your intention, I hope nobody else is misled.
Forgive me, but it is you who are misleading the readers. The words I quoted are from the Pope, speaking ex-cathedra on a question of faith, thus they are binding to you. So when you write that Just as there are examples of orthodox and heretics amongst the laity and clergy of the Orthodox you are completely missing the point. Orthodox Christians never had a Pope or any other kind of super-bishop. In fact, we live by the 15th canon of the First and Second Council which specifically says:
But as for those who on account of some heresy condemned by Holy Synods or Fathers sever themselves from communion with their president, that is, because he publicly preaches heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons as these not only are not subject to canonical penalty for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before synodical clarification, but they shall be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not fragmented the Church’s unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church”
And I assure you that while even today the Orthodox Church has plenty of bishops who are, indeed, heretics and apostates, and we are not bound to them. In fact, our faith mandates that we wall ourselves off from such false pastors. How would Latins do that towards their “infallible” Pope? They can’t! So says their *own* dogmatic theology!
Unless, of course, you reject the FIRST Vatican Council which was the one proclaiming the infallibility of the Pope as a dogma. But Latin “traditionalists” (whose traditions go no further than the 19th century when the Papal infallibility – and the Immaculate Conception I would add – were promulgated) are quite mistaken when they think that the current chaos in the Papacy is the result of the Vatican II council. It is not. It is the result of the FIRST Vatican Council which directly created the current mess. But we could look even deeper and realize that the First Vatican Council did not appear ex nihilo either but is the result of *centuries* of gradual departure from, and alienation of, the original counciliar tradition of the Church.
In the West, this tendency to replace a mystical Christianity with a form of “sacralized secular domination” began almost immediately after the fall of Rome and the Western Roman Empire (in 476 AD) and the subsequent separation of Frankish-controlled Rome from the rest of the Roman Christian world (in 1054) which outlived Rome by a full millennium (until 1453 exactly). In 1075 already the Papacy adopted an amazing document which became known as the Dictatus Papae (or Papal Dictation) and which contained 27 principles which had never *ever* been part of the teachings of the Early Church and the Church Fathers. Here is the full list:
That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
That the pope may depose the absent.
That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
That this title [Pope] is unique in the world.
That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
That he himself may be judged by no one.
That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made holy by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.
Every one of these new rules is in total and categorical contradiction with the preceding 1000 year long history of the Church which used to be called “Catholic” because not only of its universal nature, but because it was based on counciliar (all-incuding/universal) meetings were all bishops were considered equal and no authority was recognized as superior to such a council of bishops.
Just two decades after cutting itself off from the Christian world, in 1054, the Pope declared himself some kind of “super-absolute-bishop”, in 1075, something unheard of before, and then soon thereafter, in 1096, the Papacy declared its first ‘crusade’. Does anybody really think that this is a coincidence?
So while in the East not only Roman traditions but Rome itself survived the western Rome by a full 1000 years, in the West the process of departure from the consensus patrum which had existed since times of Christ never stopped. Modern Latin Christianity is, if you want, the product of one thousand years of dogmatic innovations (what we would call “modernism”).
As for the “secrets” of Fatima, the “consecrations of Russia to the Mother of God” and all the rest of this lore, they are but desperate attempts at somehow “pegging” the sinking Latin Christianity to Russia and it will, of course, fail (how can you consecrate something you don’t even own?!). Should you harbor any illusions on this issue I recommend that you carefully read the two following texts:
Even today, Muslims still think of the Orthodox as “Romans” (Rum) and they are correct. The western and the Latin Church do not have their roots in the Roman world at all, they are the products of the Franks. Listen to this if you have any doubts about that:
So the fact that a modern Latin has three choices,
1) join group “B”
2) accept that his religion has internal dogmatic contradictions (what would Thomas Aquinas have to say to that!!!)
3) renounce his mistakes and be reunited with the Church
It is really that simple.
To add to The Saker’s comments, if I may, you are always welcome to come home to the Church. There is no judgement here … you have been misled by the accumulated malice of 1000 years of evil men. All you need is the sincere, humble desire to embrace the Truth. The more you study the FIRST Vatican “council,” the more sense this will make. Then you can back up to Basel and Constance, and the lunacy of Anselm, and as far back as you care to go into the (often honest) ignorance of the Western monks who started this whole tragic story circa 9th century. Another excellent page on Orthodoxinfo is here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.aspx
Pay special attention to “The Vatican Dogma” by Sergius Bulgakov. He had his own issues as a theologian but was an excellent historian. Required reading for any Latin who truly desires to discover where, how, and why the current form of their religion was created 150 years ago.
All very good points and advice!
To those who fear giving up their (cultural/family/ethnic) traditions I would just remind them of the following words of Christ:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
May these words be your guides!
As for Bulgakov, the text Andrew mentions can be found here:
I always find debate re religions fascinating …..
When doing post grad ethnicity, identity, nationalism culture – Religion – etc became studies of influence in violence …. all contemporay argument due to the 1990s +- Balkan wars …… many questions arose Why did the violence arise and What was the cause. What made people fracture into “groups”
Part 1 above and part 2 raise the question of being “genetically” born that way (Premordial )
No we are not ! Behaviour in culture pushes many into a group …. them verses us ….. Thats it…. People construct us unto groups …..
Jewishness verses other or not …. Muslim verses european or not ….. and so on…. Islam verses Roman Catholicism verse Orthodox verse Hindu verses protestants … what ever … all people made constructs….
All claiming to be the Truth yet all evolve from peoples interpretations of the original manuscripts ….. Thats where we slide off the tracks into subjective positions …..
The original manuscripts – books – letters – and their respective authors of what compiles the core Bible today is where one must begin to comprehend all the above debates
which of the above groups has a more correct comprehension and interpretation of the core manuscripts can be debateable ….. Not from as I picked up the interpretations from many who came after ….. claiming to be Gods representative (for choice of a better word).
I went back to core studies to comprehend the life of Christ …. ( for example Mary was not a prominent feature as many today suggest from their group. A religion of sorts has been built up around her involvement thus this distracts many/some from the teachings of Jesus Christ.) So why not a religion around Joseph too ?
So what is Christianity – It is a much abused and misused label – ? and vague when others ask as to what is a “christian” – small c is deliberate…
So where to begin? …
Read the Sermon on the Mount….. and begin there……
We dont need men or women in “office” to teach us about the ” born again Christianity” form and what is expected of us as individuals….
We have Gods original manuscripts and the Spirit of God to teach us ….. and we need to daily – if we are serious and many/most of us are Not!!!! – to quietly read and meditate on this in the present tense and listen ……
By understanding the core message means all else will fall into place in understanding via spiritual interaction ….. Not mans inpute of man written additional books or what ever…. eg Canon or whatever ….
We Cannot change the world …… It is Chaos as All systems we live by and under are man/woman made.
and are doomed.
Only nature is above that…. Thankfully _ Gods creation …… and so are we its just our behaviour is seriously rotten and so are our attitudes towards other whom challenge us …. Sermon of the Mount teaches an impossible opposite behaviour ….. Thus the challenge … a life long challenge
Good luck with the journey ….. its a life long walk and very very lonely at times….. as the world is structured against everything which Christ taught and reteaches ….
(Words in caps edited,MOD)
@We have Gods original manuscripts and the Spirit of God to teach us
Well, they have not been written in English and it is presumptuous to believe that you actually have the Spirit of God.
Regarding your statement that papal infallibility wasn’t established until the Council of Trent, that’s not correct. It was defined as a dogma at Vatican I in 1870, but the truth of it was believed since the beginning. We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.
Luke 22:31-32- “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter (singular), that his faith fail not. Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors (the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra: “SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra: “… the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not …’”
And this truth has been held since the earliest times in the Catholic Church.
Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495: “Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).”
The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.” Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith. And it was also believed in the early Church, as we see here. Though this truth was believed since the beginning of the Church, it was specifically defined as a dogma at the First Vatican Council in 1870.
After Bergoglio is gone (death or resignation) the Catholic Church (or at least the fraction of remaining faithful bishops/cardinals) had better quickly declare Bergoglio’s papacy null and void due to Benedict’s invalid resignation….otherwise there WILL be nothing left of the Catholic Church (ie specifically Her claims of supreme Papal authority/infallibility that developed over the last 1,000 years or so) as you and I know it.
What will remain will be a remnant flock of faithful Catholics, who would evolve into an independent “Western/Latin” Orthodox Church similar to the Russian, Greek, Syrian, etc. Orthodox Churches, with it’s own specific Catholic (ie minus claims of the supreme Papal power/authority) spirituality. The vast, vast majority of Catholics (ignorant or malevolent) would remain part of an ever more decentralized, secularized/liberal Catholic Church similar to that which we now see with the Anglicans and other progressive/liberal Protestant denominations.
That is my best educated guess as to how things will play out (short of a miraculous intervention by God) over the next 10-20 years. Nothing internally really changes for the faithful Catholics just the externals!
“Even today, Muslims still think of the Orthodox as “Romans” (Rum) and they are correct. The western and the Latin Church do not have their roots in the Roman world at all, they are the products of the Franks. Listen to this if you have any doubts about that”
Yes that is correct. From what I can recall Rome or Rum is mentioned once in the Quran, and it was in reference to the eastern Roman Empire or what many people now call Byzantium. At the time of the mention I think the emperor was Heracles. The Frank’s are never mentioned in the Quran, but in Arabic literature it was a term used for western Europe.
The fact still remains Jesus Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter (Mt. 16), and gave him jurisdiction over his flock (John 21:15-17). St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and his followers (i.e., the members of the Church in Rome) elected his successor, or he appointed his own successor as the Bishop of Rome and head of the universal Church. This process continued through the ages, with the pope being able to change the process of election (such as by instituting a college of cardinals) if he so decided, since the pope has supreme authority in the Church from Christ (Mt. 16). All individuals not elected in this fashion (e.g., one who was elected after the Bishop of Rome had already been chosen in the tradition thus described, or one who was appointed by an outside source, such as an emperor, after the pope had already been chosen, or one who was elected as a non-member of the community, such as a manifest heretic) wouldn’t be true popes, but (logically) antipopes. This logical framework holds true for all of history, and has allowed one to see which are the true popes and which are not – even if at some of the most difficult periods of Church history, such as the Great Western Schism, ascertaining the facts to correctly apply these principles was difficult enough that some mistakes were made by certain individuals. There is a consistent, logical framework of the succession of the authority given to St. Peter by Jesus Christ to the popes down through the ages. This shows that the Catholic Faith is consistent. (The authority given to St. Peter and his successors is the backing of the dogmatic councils; this is the authority which anathematizes those who deny the dogmatic councils’ teaching.
On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical. As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II! But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops. Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical! Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….
if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787? Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept? What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it? How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were? What are the criteria? I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox” this very question and received no answer simply because they have none. Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.
Eastern Orthodoxy cannot logically hold any council to be dogmatic and binding, as you will see if you honestly and deeply think about it. In E. Orthodoxy there is nothing which backs the anathemas of Ephesus or another council other than the word of bishops, who are equal to other bishops who many times taught the opposite. If the “Church” spoke at Constantinople I because 150 bishops came to it and pronounced authoritatively on faith, then the “Church” spoke at many other false councils in the early Church which had similar numbers of bishops! It is inescapable, therefore, that according to the Eastern “Orthodox” position the Church of Christ has defected (i.e., officially fallen into error) many times at the various false councils. This contradicts the promises of Christ that the gates of Hell cannot prevail and that God would be with His Church always (Mt. 16). Eastern “Orthodoxy” is an illogical farce, which rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and the fathers on the Papal Primacy, and which causes those who accept it to truly wind up believing in no dogma at all.
If you were familiar with the writings of Saint Vincent of Lerins you would have a simple answer to all your questions. You might also want to read about the life of Saint Maximos the Confessor. As for the false union of Florence, it is actually a perfect example of how the Church as a whole can oppose and reject even a very large number of apostate bishops. Unless, of course, you have a Pope at which point you are obliged to accept whatever inanity he utters.
Look, you are welcome to wait for your Messiah with your Judaic older brothers and keep demanding that we actually take you seriously. But to hear you tell us about those who “wind up believing in no dogma at all” is truly hilarious considering all the dogmatic zig-zags your Popes have been, and still are, engaged in. The sad reality is that the vast majority of Latin don’t even know their *own* teachings (ask any Latin what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception really refers to and weep. Or laugh) – nevermind Patristics. Even you, and I quite recognize the type of Latin you are, don’t seem to be aware that from the point of view of the Papacy we are not heretics, but *schismatics* (the reverse is, however, not true). But the way you “count bishops” instead of referring to the *contents* of their teachings just goes to show that Patristic ecclesiology has never been, and is still not, a Latin forte, does it :-)
Just do us this one favor: stop hallucinating about consecrating *our* countries to anybody (as they are not yours to dispose of unless of course, you still operate under the terms of the Treaty of Tordesillas, that is) and stop hoping that we, Orthodox Christians, will somehow save your Papacy. Having dealt with you for about 1000 years, we are under no illusions about your intentions towards us and we have no desire to even get involved in the problems of a society you helped create.
Just leave us alone and we will very gladly return you the favor :-)
@gave him jurisdiction over his flock
This is another twisted interpretation. The passage in John 21:15-17 reads: “He saith unto him, Feed my lambs (βόσκε* τὰ ἀρνία μου). 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, tend my sheep (ποίμαινε** τὰ πρόβατά μου). 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep (βόσκε* τὰ πρόβατά μου)”.
*bóskō – properly, feed (graze); (figuratively) spiritually nourish by feeding people the Word of God (Jn 21:15,17). While 4166 (poimḗn) focuses on “shepherding” the flock of God (caring for them), 1006 (bóskō) stresses feeding them His Word.
**poimaínō (“to shepherd, tend”) occurs 11 times in the NT, usually with a figurative sense of “shepherding (tending) God’s flock.” This provides Spirit-directed guidance (care) conjunction with feeding His people (teaching them Scripture). (poimaínō) focuses on “tending” (“shepherding”) ), which includes guarding, guiding, and folding the flock and is only provided (ultimately) by Jesus Christ – the Shepherd, who calls under-shepherds (such as elder-overseers) to guard and guide His people by His direction (1 Pet 5:1-5: “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Tend the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble”)
The false councils decrees did not remain in force. Indeed, the gates of Hell did not prevail.
I think it is important to make a clarification here, about what it is meant by teaching ex cathedra: the Pope’s words are considered dogma when a series of conditions are satisfied.
1) He must talk as the head of the Church, not as a private teacher (ie. Bergoglio on the plane is not talking ex
catedra, Benedict XVI often spoke expressedly as a theologian): a clear referring to his authority must be
2) He should manifest his will to talk to the universal church (Urbi et orbi)
3) The obligation of the faithful to adhere to his teaching should be also expressed.
4) There should be explicit condemnation of those who refuse that teaching (anathema sit)
Also, the power of the pope is limited: he can only confirm what already was part of the depositum fidei, the content of faith, the tradition, which is based on the Scriptures and the Revelation, the latter having ended when the last Apostle died. According to our faith, NOT A IOTA of the depositum fidei can be changed. (See Vatican Council I, Pastor aeternus,1870)
So, by definition, the pope can’t speak ex catedra and go against the eternal teaching on the church.
I hope that, since catholics and orthodox share the gospels and the first eight ecumenical councils, you will agree that the catholic doctrine cannot be waiting for the Jew’s messiah to come. St. Paul is clear: the Messiah came, and they rejected him. We now expect, but try to prevent, the coming of the Antichrist.
So why did pope Paul VI, during Vatican Council II (1962-65), allow the publication of the document Dignitatis Humanae, which opened the gates to religious freedom, and our referring to the Jews as elder brothers?
he wasn’t talking ex catedra, he was a modernist like many other bishops in the council.
A modernist catholic doesn’t believe in the concept of authority: he believes in ecumenism. What matters is dialogue, not what you believe in. So a modernist pope will never speak ex catedra, using the full weight of his authority: it would go against his relativistic principles.
The defection of the pope from good doctrine is like having an unjust dad: you respect him even though he has limits, you don’t obey him if he asks you to do something wrong..
I honestly don’t think that modernist catholics should be called “latins”. For many years, the latin mass was forbidden and was only kept by a small number of priests. Maybe you have heard of the society of priests founded by the french bishop Marcel Lefebvre: The Society of st,Pius X, SSPX. Lefebvre was, quite amazingly, almost the only bishop who didn’t accept to fall to the modernist wave. Although he spoke to the pope as a son to an erring father, he refused to obey, and was marginalized.
Groups who started saying the mass in latin but still accepted in toto the pope’s authority are now being destroyed by pope Francis’ iron fist. I can give you direct testimonies about the Franciscans of the Immaculate, who are currently being persecuted in any possible way.
The catholic Church is in great distress: if you see it full of contradictions it’s because there are. But what the Catholic Church is, and will always be, cannot be changed. Not even by the pope with all of the UN behind.
Greetings from italy, and thanks for the really good fight you are fighting.
Even though we lost WWII, and our soul with it, let me tell you that it is thanks to the work of people like you that more and more of us are opening their eyes.
According to our faith, NOT A IOTA of the depositum fidei can be changed
Thanks for your post. I am aware of the official position stated in the sentence above, but I think we both know that, in reality, dogmas were, shall we say, “reinterpreted” and then “justified”. For example, the Patristic interpretation of the what “and upon this rock” is clearly not the one of the modern Latin Church or the concept of primus inter pares would have no meaning at all. Not only that, but you also know that numerous documents were forged by the Franks (such as the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals). I won’t even mention the filioque as a clear case of (rather illiterate) innovation which, by the way, falls under the anathema of the first Ecumenical Councils.
The sad reality is simple: Rome broke off the entire Christian world and proclaimed itself as the pleroma of the Church. In the words of the Scripture, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”
First you left us. Then, for the next 1000 years, you tried to destroy us (we “owe” the Ukraine *entirely* to your efforts ad majorem Dei gloriam. Think of that when you watch the news from the Donbass!). Now it is you who is dying. What a sad irony…
Please understand – what you are describing sounds plausible and orthodox (in the sense of “correct”), but as soon as we look into the writings of the Church Fathers and the consensus patrum which they produced, we see that following the fall of Rome the West basically was cut off from the rest of the Christian world and, freed from any external limitations placed upon itself, set a course on dogmatic innovation which would have been totally alien to the Church of the first 1000 years of our era.
Finally, there is a simple truth told to us by Christ: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit”. Look at the world you live in and ask yourself – is that a world created by the Photian schismatics or a pure product of the Papacy?! Don’t give me the answer, give it to *yourself*.
As for speaking of “Latins” – you are correct. This is not my favorite term either. The problem is that the words “Papist” was used as a slur and is offensive. Clearly, I won’t use Roman-Catholic since “Roman Catholics” are neither Roman (we, the Orthodox are) nor Catholic (yet again, we would be the real Catholics). So what could I use? The most logical term would, of course, to be saying “Franks” (as the Arabs still do today). But almost nobody would understand why I use this term. Besides, Franks used to refer to a culture/ethnicity so I would have to use something like “spiritual Franks”. That would be accurate, but boy would it be heavy and confusing.
So “Latin” is the best I can come up with. After all, until recently, Latin was the language of the (hmmm, what word shall I use now?), well, the Latin church. BTW – I am closely familiar with the Society of St. Pius X and I have visited Écône. I have also interacted with various Sedevacantists groups and I know their convoluted efforts to solve the now obvious contradictions inside the corpus of Latin theology. I remember how the Vatican re-allowed the use of Latin just in order to weaken these groups and how modernist parishes suddenly tried to return to the old mass. It was really a sad spectacle.
Unlike some other comments here which reek of the same old (and ancient) hostility we, Orthodox Christians, are so used to, your comment seems to be written in all sincerity. I urge you to rethink these issues and go straight to the source: the Fathers. Let their spirit permeate your mind and things will fall into place by themselves. Their witness the only authoritative one in these matters.
As far as I understand James being bishop of Jerusalem had higher authority than Peter. The bishop of Rome only took on a higher authority after the destruction in Jerusalem in 70 a.d. Is this correct?
No, sorry. Saint James would have been the ruling bishop of Jerusalem, yes, but there never was any one bishop above any other one. That is the very principle of counciliarity which has been the cornerstone of the organization of the Church. In fact, there *CANNOT* be anything/anyone above a bishop in soteriological terms as the bishop is the source of Grace in the Church and hence the ancient teaching the Church is where the bishop is. The Latins view the Church first and foremost as an *organization*, hence the need for one “boss” which is the “vicary” of Christ. The Orthodox view the Church as the mystical Body of Christ (the term is “theandric”) and we believe that since the Church is the Body of Chris and since it is filled with the Holy Spirit the very notion of a “vicary” is absolutely nonsensical and, in a way, implies that God is absent from that Church (hence a need for a caretaker vicary until His return). The *REAL* different between the Orthodox Christians and the Latins is not the issue of the primacy of the Pope, that being only a consequence of the real difference, the *REAL* difference is that we and the Latins have completely different and mutually exclusive ecclesiologies (=concept/theory/belief in what the Church *is*). You could also say that Latins have transferred/bestowed upon one man (the Pope) qualities and attributes which we, Orthodox Christians, have always believed to be the attributes of the entire Church. If you want to squeeze this subtle and nuanced contrast into one very short slogan you would not be really wrong if you put it this way: the Orthodox believe in the Church, the Latins believe in the Pope.
One more thing about primacy of honor. Speaking worldly organizational terms, there are various subcategories of bishops: archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs and, in the city of Rome, Popes (the term just means “father”). So if you are a bishop of a relatively small city, you are just that, a bishop. In larger, bigger cities, and in capitals, the title of Archbishop (or senior bishop) or Metropolian (bishop of a big city). However, in sacramental terms these titles mean nothing, you could be, say, the Patriarch of All-Russia and the bishop of a small city in the Urals, and the Patriarch would have a primacy of *honor* he would even get to represent the full Russian Orthodox Church in some public circumstances, he would even preside in a Russian Orthodox Council meeting, but he could not even change the local schedule of services in the parishes of the bishop in the Urals or, even less so, appoint, say, a deacon. Now compare that with the kind of powers the Latin Pope claimed for themselves in the Dictatus Papae (or Papal Dictation) I mention in this thread. The contrast is nothing short of stunning.
So whether Saint James was the local ruling bishop or Jerusalem or not makes no difference to the fact that he had absolutely no primacy over any of the Apostles.
To fully answer your question I would add this: the need to have a visible ‘boss’ stems from three fundamental conditions:
1) first, a basic lack of education in Patristic theology (let’s just say that most Franks were semi-literate thugs and even the more educated amongst them rarely were fluent in Greek).
2) second, a lack of faith in the fact that the Church is the Thandric Body of Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit and that the only “boss” of the Church is, of course, God himself
3) a desire to use the organization of the Church to acquire worldly/secular power
That’s it. It is that simple, that crude and that sad. Prayerful holy ascetics in the East, thugs in the West. Has it changed that much?
Thanks. There is a similar situation in Buddhism. The Buddha also did not appoint anyone to be in charge of the sangha. From the Mahaparinibbana sutta :
‘Now the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda saying, “It may be, Ananda, that to some among you the thought will come: “Ended is the word of the master, we have a Master no longer”. But it should not be considered so. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your master when I am gone.’
@Historically, neither the Catholic Church nor the Popes have ever considered that the ‘Messiah’ the current modern Rabbinic Jews are awaiting is the same.
They do now.
Right. Which begs the question: were the Popes infallible when they did say X or when they said non-X. The correct answer is, of course, they were infallible (axiomatically) on both cases :-)
To think that anybody could still take that nonsense seriously just blows my mind…
My brother, who is Catholic SSPX and very knowledgeable on Catholicism, told me that the Pope’s infallibility does not concern all that the Pope says but only his written official declarations on dogma.
Absolute best book one ‘jewish’ issue ever written is the book “Controversy of Zion” by former London Times journo Douglas Reed. Penned in 1956 and hidden until the internet era, it is stunningly prophetic, insightful and does not seem dated by one inch. Completely relevant and so brilliant you’d swear it was authored today. Not just theoretical analysis either, but filled w/ lost, unknown or forgotten quotes, facts and history that will keep your eyebrows raised to the top of your scalp! Truly a MUST READ
– – – I am not an Anti-Semite; I like Arabs. – – –
Once more… Most Jews are not Semites (Semitic peoples of Middle East origin).
Arthur Koestler’s book “The Thirteenth Tribe,” is a place to begin understanding that Zionists-(English translation “Nazi Terrorist Land Thieves & Ethnic Cleansers of Palestinians”), are overwhelmingly of European origin, and therefore, definitely not Semites.
1. Continuing right along. If you do not like Jews, you might be “anti-Jewish,” but not likely an ‘Anti-Semite.”
2. The misuse of the term is fostered by the Zionist Hollywood agents of Mainstream mis-education and mis-direction. A perusal of Orwell, in his “1984,” covers this tactic of undermining all possibility of resistance to Tyranny, by blocking any -intellectual understanding- of a particular type of Tyranny and Oppression.
3. In modern times, The major -Racist Anti-Semites on the Planet, are the Zionist Land Thieving Oligarchs and their followers. They successfully hide their guilt, by brainwashing the inhabitants of Mother Earth. Zionists specialize in brainwashing their victims and mis-directing the victim’s resistance.
The article by the Archbishop Lvov, and the introduction by The Saker, are excellent, and well appreciated.
Restore the American Republic!
I just finished re-reading the Ilyin text from last week – that is so beautiful – its perfect – thank you so much for these introductions into Russian religious thought.
I’m going to read this present article later – I just read the first part of your intro – about the Pharisees –
I suppose you mean that any people who are Semitic who are also Jewish by heredity – they are of the line of the Pharisees – I’m not sure why that is ?-
Perhaps this article will tell me why – but the tribe of Benjamin must have been that group of Pharisees as Paul was a Pharisee and he was of the tribe of Benjamin.
I’m reading the Old Testament for the first time ever and I’m in Samuel ‘2’ right now – the story of King David – actually the Samuel ‘1’ Book was the most beautiful stories of David – he’s already a decadent king in Samuel 2 – but when he was a boy (Samuel ‘1’) the stories are WONDERFUL
But there is quite a bit about the tribe of Benjamin – I gather they lived in a different part of the original lands – and sometimes were not really part of the big people Israel – I have noticed that recently in the Samuel books
Are you an expert on the stories of the Old Testament ?
Anyway I will print this present article – and read it quietly – I’m really excited because that other piece – ‘On Love’ by Ivan Ilyin – was really the best writing on Love – I’ve read – as poetic prose –
Thanks so much for all you do Saker
I suppose you mean that any people who are Semitic who are also Jewish by heredity – they are of the line of the Pharisees – I’m not sure why that is ?
No, not at all. All modern forms of “Judaism” descend (spiritually) from the Sect of the Pharisees as all the other Jewish sects of that time did disappear. The Pharisees were one of the most dynamic sects of the time of Christ (Saint Paul was, for example, a Pharisee) and they had assemblies (synagogues) were they could meet. They also developed the rabbinical institution and they wrote the Talmud. They are truly the basis upon which modern “Judaism” is built. But this has nothing to do with heredity.
Aye, and Saul of Tarsus sat at the feet of Gamalieu.
“The Pharisees were one of the most dynamic sects…”
Thank you for answering the question I have had for so long as I wondered why the Pharisees called themselves “jews”. I mistakenly thought they were only a small %, a minority of the total jewish population that didnt convert to Christianity, but in fact it is the opposite. Only a minority followed Christ. The text above also says so: ” The main mass of the people, mainly its guiding, representative part, i.e. the priests (who were the official rulers) and the Pharisean rabbis (their real rulers) ” [did not follow Christ].
Phariseans were not ruling the priests.
Phariseans were one of the several Jewish sects during the Roman era, before the destruction of the Temple.
Phariseans were centered on the study of the Oral Law and their leaders were the rabbis.
The Sadducees were lead by Priests (not all of them, as some were phariseans) and centered on the spiritual work in the Temple. they rejected Oral Law and were the main rulers.
there were also Essenes, Zealots.
With both the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish national homeland, the Sadduceans’ raison d’être disappeared and they did not survive that major crisis.
Phariseans existence was not dependent on the existence of a Temple or a Jewish homeland and thus were the only major Jewish sect that was able to survive.
Thank you very much for this post and for everything you present. I and many others have learned a great deal from what you offer online and your books.
I’ve found this by Roman historian Tacitus in various translations, all with much the same content. Referring to #3-#5, if you have time, would you say how Tacitus’ material relates to “Judaism and Christianity”?
Asalam alykum (peace be with you) to the saker , and the rest of the community here.
This was a fascinating read, and I enjoyed it all the way through. I can tell Archbishop Nathanail was a deeply spiritual individual from the way he explained all the nuances, when it comes to this topic. To put it simply, as a Muslim I pretty much agree with everything that he bought up.
Muslim’s believe that prophet Jesus(as) was indeed the Messiah sent to the children of Israel, but they rejected him because he didn’t “fit” what they wanted out of a Messiah figure. The archbishop does a wonderful job explaining the psychology or inner workings of a group of people that start believing that they are an “absolute necessity” in the midst of the rest of the “unworthy” creation of Allah (swt). Sooner or later a group with this mentality will view it as “God must follow our lead” as opposed to “we must follow God’s lead” which is the obvious correct way.
Bani Israel (the children/tribe of Israel/Prophet Jacob(as)) is a very touchy subject. Many Muslim’s even have a very hard time understanding all the moving pieces when it comes to this topic. The first thing to understand is the difference between “bani Israel” and a “Jew.” When we say “Bani Israel” we simply mean the descendants of prophet Jacob(as), who was given the name Israel by God Almighty. So the sons of prophet Jacob(as) made up the nation of Israel. He was the first of the Israelites. A “Jew” does not necessarily mean an Israelite, even though that’s what Jew’s today want the rest of the world to believe. The people with power in the world are trying really hard to make the two terms synonymous. At the end of the day this lineage stuff isn’t really important though. All of mankind has the opportunity to have nearness to God Almighty.
I will quote a few verses about bani Israel from the translation of the holy Quran.
[2:40] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and be faithful to (your) covenant with Me, I will fulfill (My) covenant with you; and of Me, Me alone, should you be afraid.
[2:47] O children of Israel! Call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations.
[2:49] And when We delivered you from Pharaoh’s people, who subjected you to severe torment, killing your sons and sparing your women, and in this there was a great trial from your Lord.
[2:50] And when We par- ted the sea for you, so We saved you and drowned the followers of Pharaoh and you watched by.
[2:51] And when We appointed a time of forty nights with Musa, then you took the calf (for a god) after him and you were unjust.
[2:52] Then We pardoned you after that so that you might give thanks.
[2:56] Then We raised you up after your death that you may give thanks.
[2:57] And We made the clouds to give shade over you and We sent to you manna and quails: Eat of the good things that We have given you; and they did not do Us any harm, but they made their own souls suffer the loss.
[2:58] And when We said: Enter this city, then eat from it a plenteous (food) wherever you wish, and enter the gate making obeisance, and say, forgiveness. We will forgive you your wrongs and give more to those who do good (to others).
[2:59] But those who were unjust changed it for a saying other than that which had been spoken to them, so We sent upon those who were unjust a pestilence from heaven, because they transgressed.
[2:61] And when you said: O Musa! We cannot bear with one food, therefore pray Lord on our behalf to bring forth for us out of what the earth grows, of its herbs and its cucumbers and its garlic and its lentils and its onions. He said: Will you exchange that which is better for that which is worse? Enter a city, so you will have what you ask for. And abasement and humiliation were brought down upon them, and they be- came deserving of Allah’s wrath; this was so because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and killed the prophets unjustly; this was so because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits.
[2:63] And when We took a promise from you and lifted the mountain over you: Take hold of the law (Taurat) We have given you with firm- ness and bear in mind what is in it, so that you may guard (against evil).
[2:64] Then you turned back after that; so were it not for the grace of Allah and His mercy on you, you would certainly have been among the losers.
[2:83] And when We made a covenant with the children of Israel: You shall not serve any but Allah and (you shall do) good to (your) parents, and to the near of kin and to the orphans and the needy, and you shall speak to men good words and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate. Then you turned back except a few of you and (now too) you turn aside.
[2:84] And when We made a covenant with you: You shall not shed your blood and you shall not turn your people out of your cities; then you gave a promise while you witnessed.
(This sounds familiar, it sounds like what today’s Jew’s did are continuing to do to the Palestinians)
[2:85] Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes, backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them, while their very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the re ward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.
(Another verse that sounds like its describing what they do to the Palestinians)
[2:92] And most certainly Musa came to you with clear arguments, then you took the calf (for a god) in his absence and you were unjust.
[2:93] And when We made a covenant with you and raised the mountain over you: Take hold of what We have given you with firmness and be obedient. They said: We hear and disobey. And they were made to imbibe (the love of) the calf into their hearts on account of their unbelief Say: Evil is that which your belief bids you if you are believers.
[2:94] Say: If the future abode with Allah is especially for you to the exclusion of the people, then invoke death if you are truthful.
(This is a beautiful verse, because if the Jew’s truly believed they are the chosen people, and all gentiles are cursed, why do they not hope for death? The next verse will answer this question)
[2:95] And they will never invoke it on account of what their hands have sent before, and Allah knows the unjust.
[2:96] And you will most certainly find them the greediest of men for life (greedier) than even those who are polytheists; every one of them loves that he should be granted a life of a thousand years, and his being granted a long life will in no way remove him further off from the chastisement, and Allah sees what they do.
( I always found this verse funny, because it calls out the greed of the Jew’s. Again it’s not right to accuse all of them of this, but their is obvious truth in this verse)
[4:155] Therefore, for their breaking their covenant and their disbelief in the communications of Allah and their killing the prophets wrongfully and their saying: “Our hearts are covered” nay! Allah set a seal upon them owing to their unbelief, so they shall not believe except a few.
[4:156] And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Maryam a grievous calumny.
(This verse is referencing the fact that the Jew’s accused the blessed virgin Mary(as) of being unchaste when she had prophet Jesus (as). )
[5:12] And certainly Allah made a covenant with the children of Israel, and We raised up among them twelve chieftains; and Allah said: Surely I am with you; if you keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and believe in My messengers and assist them and offer to Allah a goodly gift, I will most certainly cover your evil deeds, and I will most certainly cause you to enter into gardens beneath which rivers flow, but whoever disbelieves from among you after that, he indeed shall lose the right way.
[5:13] But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).
(This verse says they will be treacherous, but to forgive them)
[5:70] Certainly We made a covenant with the children of Israel and We sent to them messengers; whenever there came to them an messenger with what that their souls did not desire, some (of them) did they call liars and some they slew.
(They would deny prophets based on they’re whims)
[5:71] And they thought that there would be no affliction, so they became blind and deaf; then Allah turned to them mercifully, but many of them became blind and deaf; and Allah is well seeing what they do.
[5:78] Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood (David) and Isa(Jesus), son of Maryam; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.
[5:79] They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did.
[5:80] You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.
[5:81] And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! Most of them are transgressors.
Their are a lot more verses in the Quran that deal with this topic, but I’ll stop here. Hope you guys enjoy. Salam
I grew up in the racist southern USA. Back when the racism was very open and very direct, at least among its believers. Admittedly, I saw this while looking up from the seat of a tricycle, but I saw it.
One thing that I came away with is that I am not a believer in thinking in stereotypes. From my lifetime of experience, I regard each human being as a unique individual. Its easy to say that Group A is Characteristic X, and on the surface, you may have met a person from Group A who did indeed show Characteristic X, so maybe if a person’s brain is shut down, they might agree with the statement. But, my experience has shown me that most people are individuals, and that generally you find about the same characteristics scattered among any group.
I view stereotypes as a sign of very weak thinking. My experience is that as soon as you gather even a small number of people from a group, only the most very general statements can be made that are accurate to every member of the group. Examples being … they breathe air. Or, they enjoy sex when its done correctly. But as soon as someone starts to say “All [group A] are stupid” or thieves or rapists or whatever slur is being slung that day, its simply not true and the only value of listening to it is to mark this person as a very weak thinker who should be ignored as long as they are harmless.
And across any race, there are human beings who will use ‘race’ to try to get what they want. Whether it be political power, or to get the girl by running off the guy who is ‘other’ or whatever it is that they want. One of those characteristics that seems to be simply human and appears across all races is that willingness in some to play the ‘race card’. And all racists will always have a ready set of excuses as to why they are not racist. When I was growing up around southern American christians the most common excuse was that “God Wills it”, and they could quote a careful selection of bible verses that they claimed backed up their views.
I view playing the race card as a sign of weak morals and ethics. And I view thinking in stereotypes as a sign of weak intelligence. Every human is an individual, and you have to take the time to get to know them to discover what they are really like.
That’s my $0.02 worth on all of that, and the wisdom I learned watching a truly racist society while looking up from the seat of my tricycle.
You are correct, that evey individiual should be treated as an individual…but when dealing with thousands or millions of people from a ” group” whatever that group is, be it race, profession, sports team fans etc, then it is difficult to treat everyone as an individual. (Of course the latter issue is from the perspective of institutions, States and governments).
Thank you, Saker, for publishing this.
I had never encountered these concepts before. I hung on every word of the reverend archbishop. What a marvelous tale is told of how things are and came to be, and what is yet free to follow.
My own understanding of how things are, is informed by the teachings of Buddhism, which has no God but is wholly sacred, concerning itself with the inherent perfection of each and every sentient being in the universe – a perfection clouded by error, but always eligible to be manifested, through effort.
The same great struggle is presented here, in this most compassionate, and quietly holy, essay. The description of the fall of the chosen, and the taking up of the opportunity by the unprepared, is beyond poignant.
Somewhere I read that Lucifer was forever tormented by the ineffable beauty of God’s voice ever resounding in his ears, a voice that was casting him out.
So this is the Christian view. It’s wonderful. It provides the best framework I’ve ever known for the existence and meaning of the Jews in this world. Somehow it offers much hope.
Much to ponder. Thanks again.
“… Buddhism, which has no God ”
Not really true. Gautam Buddha just refused to answer all metaphysical question, including questions about the existence of God. Instead he invited the questioner to join his sangha and meditate together with thousands of monks.
“You can ask me again today in a year,” Buddha would offer to the inquirer.
The legend has it, that no one took up this offer. Why? Twelve months of meditation – watching your fake news mind spinning out garbage 24/7 without interference – in the highly charged vicinity of Gautam Buddha transformed the novice to the point that he realized that all mere philosophizing about God, etc. is nonsensical, pure theorizing, childish, actually, utterly useless mind fuck.
God has to be experienced. Talking about God is counter-productive and won’t allow you to fulfill your potential in this lifetime.
This is Gautam Buddha’s dharma.
_smr. What you say about the Buddha’s viewpoint sounds rather similar to mfy own which comes from a reading of Immanuel Kant. There are two sorts of reasoning, the Pure and the Practical. Pure Reason can be terribly practical in those cases where we can know some things clearly and distinctly enough to use them as the pillars or the framework on which to hang a chain or web of reasoning; as in the spectacular practical results of Mathematical Physics or Aristotelian Zoology. But God is not such an object of knowledge; we can know God only from our emotional feeling or conviction that some things are wrong and some things are right, some are beautiful and some are ugly, some principles are to be followed and others to be avoided; that is Practical Reason, where we can hope God works through us.
_smr, I agree completely. On the surface, Buddhism doesn’t deal with a God. At a deeper doctrinal level, Buddhism calls this belief “Eternalism” and by contrast calls the view of the atheist “Nihilism”. Both views are shown, for example by the peerless logic of Nagarjuna, to be of equal error. Buddhism is thus the “Middle Way”, neither eternalist nor nihilist, but rather dedicated, through the practice of meditation, to the direct experience of the ineffable nature of reality.
However, this was a story from Christianity and it was filled with holiness in its own terms, so I stepped lightly with Buddhist doctrine in my comment, out of reverence for the view presented in the article.
Those who are interested in Buddhism might be interested to know that, when Jews try to convert to Buddhism they are sent back to learn Judaism.
There are several testimonies of orthodox Jews who became observant after meeting with the Dalai-Lama.
The latter told one of them something along the lines of “it is not possible to exchange the original for a copy. Go back to learn the faith of your forefathers, your are closer to the Truth. All the other are copy.”. To another he said “it is not possible to exchange gold for silver…”
For those who used to watch MTV in the 90’s, the young israeli presenter named Eden is one of those who tried to become a buddhist nun and she was encouraged to go back to Israel and learn about Judaism.
“Meanwhile, the Russian people, being, as we have pointed out, in the greatest sense of the word a religious people, should have been the least capable of returning to Christ after rejecting Him.”
According to 1937 population census in the Soviet Russia, over 63% of people included in the census identified themselves as the Orthodox Christians, they were wearying Orthodox crosses on their bodies, baptized children, prayed and celebrated Christian holidays.
People age 50+y.o.: 71.1% of educated people said that they were religious, and 91.3% uneducated people.
Young people 16 to 19y.o.: 32.5% of educated teenagers identified themselves as religious, and 71% of uneducated teenagers identified themselves as religious.
The charts are here: http://krotov.info/history/20/1930/1937_zher.htm
Despite of difficulties and fear surrounding this census, its data helps to debase a notion that the Russian people had rejected Christ. It’s a myth mostly taken right from the Bolsheviks’ and Goebbels’ pre-war propaganda.
Another myth is the notion of the “Russian revolution.”
The so called “Russian revolution” never happened. Instead, what happened was an anti-government putsch and a power grab carried out by organized militant ethnic minorities, and backed by an invasion of the country by all world empires and powers, who helped this minority government to stay in power by means of unprecedented terror against majority population. As the result of which 18 million people died.
Famine in Volga region in 1920-1921.
Were the Russian people suffering because they rejected the Christ, or because of their Christianity?
Where do you place the West that rejected Christ millennium ago, and since prospered.
We can’t progress ahead with our quest for a spiritual meaning of the 20th century, unless we answer this question without a political bias.
One of the greatest mistakes and tragedies of the West has been the repudiation without investigation of Islam. While there is a certain truth to the statement attributed to St Ambrose that “Credo, ut intelligam” – Believe so that you may understand”, it is surely not necessary to have to adopt a religion in order to both understand it and see its strong points.
I have studied Orthodox Judaism and knows the other “judaisms” that is, those who do not accept the Oral Law or Talmud, and studied and prayed as a Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian. However I found myself within a context where it was no longer possible to continue in Orthodoxy because it is not a vibrant living force in my area. I was pressed, against my will almost, in having to search to find a path to God, and I found myself reading the Qur’an. As most westerners I could not grasp it and found it a muddle without direction. Yet after a while, I adopted the reading attitude of lectio divina – reading very very slow and not searching for a narrative nor a particular line of thinking, but rather engaging in the words and phrases themselves and allowing them to sink into me. And before I knew where I was, the tears began pouring down my face and I had to begin a self-interrogation as to what and why was happening to me.
To make a fairly long story short, I found the key to Islam.
As Frijthof Schuon, a Swiss adherent if not one of the mainstays of the sophia perennis, describes Islam: the basis and framework of Islam is the relationship of God as such, and Man as such. And its goal is to make man fully man. Making man fully man is to accomplish what in Orthodoxy is called theosis. Fr John Romanides describes theosis, or glorification, as achieving that level of being and understanding where one sees and accepts other human beings as God sees them, as God accepts them.
Islam, therefore, is a framework of Revelation which provides the keys to enable man in potentia to become the REAL man, to actualize his Original self. There is no Original Sin in Islam but there is a recognition that we are not what we are meant to be because we “do not remember” or we are ignorance, (as the Buddhists maintain) which makes us all unhappy beings. It requires a great effort, ritually, spiritually and intellectually, to clean ourselves of all of our prejudices and selfishness, in order to be able to live fully as beings created in HIS image.
It was against this background I began reading the above article. I am not sure there is only an Aristotelian duality that faces Christianity.
One the greatest achievements of Islam, of its Revelation, is that it is not necessary to denigrate another serious religion in order for Islam to be valid. There are many paths to Allah. It seems to me that one of the central flaws in Christian thought is the elevation of the Second Person of the Trinity over the First Person. I believe that theologically Christianity can be understood both theologically and historically, allowing for other legitimate paths to God.
On the other hand, Judaism, with its particular, non-universal morality and belief that the Gentile does not have a soul, and is therefore an impure being ritually, cannot be included within the family of monotheistic religions nor as a true understanding of God.
Monotheism is not a numerical consideration. Monotheism is the understanding that the kosmos is a unity, a unicity of the ONE who is beyond being, beyond knowing, yet the ground and substance of our being, the source of love and morality and the One who provides the gift of Life.
@Making man fully man is to accomplish what in Orthodoxy is called theosis.
Theosis means making man god. Theosis goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve (‘making man fully man’). It is possible because “the Son of God became man so that we might become god”, “The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. … Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life”, in the words of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria.
When talking about Christian matters it is preferable to search the Christian writings (the Scripture in the first place) before Schuon. I mean to search them thoroughly.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men… 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:1-12).
Yes, Shakira. And one can BE of the oneness, or can be a slave to man’s law (mammon), which is in opposition to nature (“unicity”). Man (man and woman) cannot serve two masters. Too much mind and body, and not enough spirit, I’m afraid, in most today.
Thanks for the clear and clever words. I’ll go through again your lecture to challenge the actual takfir.
You misunderstood Judaism.
According to Judaism, every human being has a soul. There are different type of souls but everyone has a soul.
Also, According to Judaism, every human being is required to adhere to the 7 Noahide Laws and thus be a strict monotheist.
@Jews are not a race or ethnicity
What are they then?
They are definitely a people who call themselves Yehudim, the Greeks ‘Ioudaioi’, Latins ‘Judaei’, Germans ‘Juden’, Russians, Poles ‘Zhyd’ (which is not a derogatory name). Only exceptions English and French ‘Jews’, ‘Juifs’.
“Jews Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim… also known as Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group and a nation originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East….Jewish ethnicity, nationhood and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish people while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance”.
They have always been considered a ‘gens’ (ethnos, race – initially used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, only by the 17th century race began to refer to physical traits), ‘natio’, with its own laws : ‘lex Iudaica’, ‘Iudaica religio’, ‘Iudeorum consuetudo’ in Roman Law and legislations derived from it.
A people who has an exacerbated view of its own worth.
I think that perhaps you meant “inflated ‘ . . not ” exacerbated”.
” A people who has an exarcerbated view of its own worth”.
Many times the view of their own worth exhibits itself by a hateful and spiteful violent insanity towards the Other.
I have never in my life (again) come across a group like this. Of course, there are evil individuals in every group. However, this group in my opinion are ” demonically unique”.
And it would take Jesus Christ Himself to make me believe otherwise.
Menechem Begin—Former Israeli Prime Minister 1977-1983
“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best.
Other races are considered as human excrement.
Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parlament], quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk (Jewish), “Begin and the Beasts,” New Statesman, June 25, 1982.
I have some doubts regarding the authenticity of the Menechem Begin quote. On the other hand the Ovadia Yosef quotes are genuine
Ovadia Yosef another sicko.
Rafael Eytan , the former Israeli chief of staff, used to talk of the Palestinians as “cockroaches in a glass jar”.
According to an Israeli Jew that goes by the name of ” Daana” in Mondoweiss, American Jews and non Jews have no idea of how vulgar, crude and disgusting the Israeli Jews speak / write in Hebrew about the Palestinians.
This ignorance comes from most people in general not speaking ” Hebrew”.
This is why I do not doubt the quote. Nor that it was ” removed” from being able to be officially confirmed.
FYI….The reason I write ” Hebrew” with quotation marks is because according to an Israeli Jew linguist, is not really Hebrew, and it should be called ” Israeli”.
Do you doubt the Talmud that says ” Jesus Christ is boiling in feces”?
Another reason why I do not doubt the quote.
To many of these people in too many ways are very corrupted in the soul.
“Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg—who is 63 with a long, graying beard—recently sat down with me to explain what he described as a “child-rape assembly line” among sects of fundamentalist Jews”.
I just google this sentence as I could not believe such a thing.
It’s an hoax.
Anonymous on January 24, 2018 · at 4:07 am UTC
@Jews are not a race or ethnicity
What are they then?
It’s a cult, comprised of people with diverse ancestry.
“Genotyping with binary markers yields a total of 37 haplogroups in our Jewish database (Fig. 1).”
“… the distribution of haplogroups within Israelites is more uniform, with no single haplogroup reaching a frequency greater than 14% in our Israelite sample
“Genetic tests of individuals who self reported as having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry revealed “3%–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in all eight of the diverse Jewish populations.”
According to their self-reporting, the “priesthood” of this cult calls the Jews “pagan converts,” “erev rav” and uses them to corrupt the nations and to absorb the “wrath of the nations.”
Outstanding. Thank you.
From a purely subjective aesthetic, I have always found the Israeli ‘Hebrew’ script really ugly.
I love the cursive flow of Arabic. (Reminds me of Old Irish script, which is like a Latinized version…)
The elegant vertical ‘cathedralism’ of Mandarin.
The lively, pictorial quality of Cyrillic – both Russian and Greek. It seems to ‘fizz’ and crackle with energy..
Even the martial severity of Roman /Latin script has a certain charm…
But Israeli, called ‘Hebrew’ looks like something close to the strings of code in old mainframe computer s… Think of ‘The Matrix’…
All those squares, lines and empty spaces.. horrible.
I have not the slightest desire to learn it..
Addendum to my last post :
The Archbishop advises taking a look at “the history of Judaism”. Elsewhere the Saker has said that historically later Judaism is not the same as earlier and is therefore not the real thing (I think this is a fair summary). Jewish scholars of Judaism, I believe, have identified five periods of Judaism. I don’t think they stipulate that one is more real than another. When is comes to Christianity, the Saker and the Archbishop rely on the authority of later Church Fathers – apparently against earlier Apostles.
Uh?! What a silly statement! The Saker
Those chosen by Jesus insisted that only Jews could join their sect.
Why is the earlier Christianity to be treated as not the real thing and the later as authoritative, in contradistinction to the treatment of Judaism? And how does one determine which form of a religion is the real thing? How choose who is authoritative?
How about getting a 101 level primer on Christian ecclesiology for starters?
“We are all brothers in Adam”. If we look at the history of humankind, or more accurately the prehistory, the notion of “Adam” is puzzling.
Only to those whose literalism makes them confuse the book of Genesis with a treaty on evolutionary biology
Genetic and fossil evidence takes us back 6 million years to the common ancestor of chimps and humans (it also takes us back to the Cambrian, and beyond to the first eukaryotes). In the 6 million years since our common ancestor there have been many hominid lineages. Homo sapiens emerged 200 000 years ago. Looked at historically (prehistorically) the notion of a first man is problematic. How is what we know of evolution reconciled with what Christians believe about the human soul? When did God first create a hominid with an immortal soul (given that there is no determinate divide between species)?
These are questions I think arise whether you are a believer or agnostic.
No, the question is whether you need to study and understand a topic before making statements about it
I also wonder about the definition of “racism” and the assertion that it does not preclude criticism of “Jews”. The definition seems a good basis for discussion (way more useful than most). It seems to me that it does not cover the Saker’s own practice in relation to “Jews”, which might have nothing to do with racism and yet may still be open to criticism.
No kidding! Something I write being subject to criticism?! Who would have thought?!
As an example, the Saker talks of the genocide of the Jews against the Orthodox. I recall (correctly, I hope) that the Saker has defended this form of words by saying it is somehow “non-commutative”.. For those of us who struggle with this, it would be more helpful simply to be more precise in the choice of referent. In this instance, it was not “Jews”, it was Bolsheviks, and Jews who were Bolsheviks, indeed Jews who were Bolsheviks who thought religion should be eradicated by force. Bolsheviks who were not Jews thought the same; Jews who were not Bolsheviks did not. An accurate and precise referent allows discussion of the violent attack on Orthodox churchmen and laity (and Jewish Rabbis and laity) without the apparent and unnecessary false statement I believe is intended to be obviated by “non-commutative”. Accuracy would suffice without the need for further explanation. There is still a reasonable objection to be made to animadversions against “the Jews”.
“unnecessary false statement I believe”?! Here I am giving up. Can’t fight against that kind of “logic”
Lindsay, the issue is, are modern jews still the Chosen People? (I guess that’s what you mean when you write “real thing” ) and the answer given in this article is a clear “no” as they failed to complete the Divine Plan.
The article speaks with great regret about this missed destiny of the Jews who were bestowed with exceptional spiritual and mental capacities. The Divine Plan was mostly completed by Christians: the jews who converted ( the Apostles) and the European pagans who, although were not so perfectly adapted to this role, eventually became the Chosen People.
Regarding your comment about using the terms “Jew” and “Bolshevik” interchangeably (with the latter being more accurate), the antagonism between jews and orthodox is not exclusive to events during the Bolshevik revolution. It started much earlier with jewish leaders such as Mark Natanson, who was responsible for the assassination of tsar Alexander II.
The Saker and Serbian Girl,
I sincerely enjoyed all the information The Saker gave and your post too Serbian girl.
No, they didn’t, If you mean the European people being ‘chosen people’ to preach Christianity.
You should study about racist doctrines like ‘manifest destiny’, what some of your ‘Chosen People’ did to the American Indians, Australian Aborigines and Africans in African continent, about the pope declaring 4th crusade on his own Christian brethren.
And if you mean European people being ‘chosen people’ like how the jews think, then you are committing the same blunder that the jews committed.
The Europeans have committed more disservice to Christianity than any other ethnic group. I know what kind of Christianity the Europeans practice. Externally it’s bright but it’s inside is hollow.
This is what Jesus Christ is going to say to your ‘chosen people’ in his second coming.
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.
Why would I study doctrines or statements made by a person (i.e. Pope) who are not part of my religion?
Not all crimes are committed by Europeans: I come from a country that was occupied for 500 years, colonised, pillaged & raped, by a non-European empire (Ottoman empire).
The reason we are able to have this religious discussion on a forum like this is not least because one of my compatriots orthodox christian, Nikola Tesla, invented A/C electricity. So much for our “disservice”..
My main objection is that you called Europeans as ‘chosen people’. This is the same belief that the European colonizers held which led to doctrines like manifest destiny and this is why I asked you to study the crimes of European colonizers.
Why would I study doctrines or statements made by a person (i.e. Pope) who are not part of my religion?
Because the ‘chosen people’ belief led to crimes by the ‘chosen people’ on other people and I thought you held the belief of European Christians being chosen.
..and the European pagans who, although were not so perfectly adapted to this role, eventually became the Chosen People.
Not all crimes are committed by Europeans: I come from a country that was occupied for 500 years, colonized, pillaged & raped, by a non-European empire (Ottoman empire).
I know about the Ottoman oppression and I know that Muslims were primarily responsible for the breakup of Yugoslavia. I only said about the European colonizers’ crime which was the result of their belief of being ‘chosen people’.
The reason we are able to have this religious discussion on a forum like this is not least because one of my compatriots orthodox christian, Nikola Tesla, invented A/C electricity.
I do not have any hatred towards eastern European orthodox Christians or any other ethnic group or religion. As for technological progress, I do not equate it with spiritual progress but Nikola Tesla certainly did the your people proud (although any technological breakthrough is the culmination of hundreds who contributed earlier).
So much for our “disservice”.
I said about the Europeans who held the erroneous belief of being ‘chosen people’ which led them to commit crimes on other fellow human beings in the name of religion.
An interesting response.
“What a silly statement”. Well, no. Christian doctrine changed over time. Hence the need for periodic synods to sort it out. You have to say why later amendments should supersede previous doctrine.
“Wrong.” I’m not a Bible scholar so I relied on those who are. One of the points of contention between the Jerusalem church (the disciples chosen by Jesus) and Paul was whether gentiles could be allowed membership.
“A primer on ecclesiology.” So I’ve to accept at face value the claims to authority of some Christian sects (in their primers on ecclesiology) but not others – because…?
“Literalism.” Now this is hand-waving surely, not an answer – unless you can say in what way the not-literally true statement about Adam fits with the literally true statement that we all descended from an ancestor we have in common with chimps. For the two to fit there has to be some answer as to when, at what stage in evolution, did hominids become (non-literally) brothers in Adam?
“Whether you need to study…” No, that is not the question. I have indeed studied the question. I have studied philosophers Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. And, yes, they all struggle with the question because they all believe themselves to be trying to make statements that are true (at some level literally) of this universe, which they believe created by God. It is a fact that humans evolved from earlier hominids. The philosophers think it true that humans are “brothers in Adam”. There is no clear-cut division between humans and the hominids they evolved from. When did hominids become “brothers in Adam”? Before they were homo sapiens? When they were homo sapiens but had none of the social and intellectual faculties we now think definitive of humans? When they first developed language? When there were the first Jews? The first Christians? It is a literal question that theologians can’t avoid if they accept what the treatises on evolutionary biology are telling them.
“No kidding etc.” You have been criticised for “anti-semitism”. You rightly say that it is reasonable to criticise what is done by various Jews without being closed down as “anti-semitic”. Your criticism of Jews is nevertheless open to criticism, for reasons I provide.No kidding.
“Unnecessary etc.” The statement is on the face of it false and it is unnecessary for you.to make it. On the assumption you are trying to say something true there is an alternative statement which is not false and conveys all that is historically justifiable.
Sorry. This is a reply by Lindsay, not l.
Lindsay, you are truly hopeless…
just your “Christian doctrine changed over time” reveals the true depth of your ignorance
the scary thing is that you really seem to believe that you know something about Christianity when clearly you are clueless. yet you are still at it, one affirmative statement after another, presenting postmodern mainstream inanities and platitudes as some kind of valuable insights.
However, I will admit that your “When did hominids become “brothers in Adam”? ” is truly *priceless* (in a frightening and depressing way): It could be written on a flag representing modern “philosophy”
If you ever want to look at a mirror – just look at the world we live in: it is you.
I was brought up in the Church of Scotland, so of course I’m “clueless”. That is why I look to the scholars who sift through the centuries of controversy and contradiction in the Church’s long effort to formulate doctrine, and the theologians and philosophers who try to construct a human simulacrum of what they take to be God’s transcendent truth (presumably the doctrine that is sempiternal and not subject to change over history unlike the human efforts to express it in human language).
Here is a theologian and philosopher, Russian Orthodox as it happens, on Original Sin:
“There is an element inherited from our ancestors and ultimately from our first human ancestor who had free will and moral concepts…” (Not a hominid, you see, but an ancestor well on in the 200 000 year evolution of homo sapiens. Literally.)
I know in your church lay people can tell the archbishop his doctrine is unsound. You can no doubt tell this philosopher the same. And some other lay person can tell you that your doctrine is unsound. Just so long as you all quote the Church Fathers. Delightfully anarchic, but not a recipe for coherent doctrine.
Can I recommend (from my outer darkness) that those interested in these questions read “Orthodox Dogmatic Theory” by Michael Pozamansky, in the History of the Orthodox People section of this blog. It is an excellent succinct introduction. (There is a question, of course, about taking it literally. I, for example, had taken it that Orthodox writings are like medieval Western writings on Scripture where there are four levels of interpretation, literal, typological, moral, and anagogical. That is one of the pitfalls of moving from one tradition to another. The Saker has warned that Orthodox dogma is not to be taken literally.) The work on Apologetic Theology by Ivan M. Andreyev (available at the same place) is equally impressive (those from other traditions will recognise many of the arguments)..
‘In the beginning was the Word….’
You pose a question from assumptions unproven – that language, the key difference between humans and all other species – has an evolutionary ‘explanation’ :
The genetic argument of evolution has some interesting questions to answer.
We ‘share’ roughly 50%of our genes with bananas.
Can you explain which 50% of our total being /behaviour perfectly mirrors bananas?
(And no, Trump’s tweets don’t count…. )
But what banana genes mirror the human ones?
Those banana genes which have same or similar sequence of the letters ATGC are the same as those genes in humans or fish or bacteria. Just as the words banana, bandana and banyan have similar sequence of the letters abdny in the books of many languages, so those human genes which are read also by the banana plant are similar in the cells of many other creatures. Molecular biologists (and some mystics also) call it the Unity of Life.
But the Unity of Life does not explain outcomes, much less the magnitude of qualitative differences between humans – creators/users /discoverers of symbolic systems – and other mammals.
Our chimp 99% DNA – sharing ‘cousins’ have never developed even the most rudimentary symbolic system. Nowhere is there even a single representation/symbol to be found.
If all we need is evolution theory to ‘explain’ the ontogeny of all life, then it must account for such lacunae.
Given that chimps have the necessary ‘equipment’ to at least develop an embryonic symbolic system, why have they not?
Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, playfully suggested language was the result of alien visitation.
It was a way of saying that biology – even at the Nano – level (neuro, biochemistry, genetics) cannot explain the origins of language /symbolic systems. It is a mystery.
That hasn’t prevented the materialist ideologues of evolution theory from coming up with an array of comically inane ‘theories’ – see my link above.
And they think the creationists are idiots?
@Eimear. The 4 letters of the genetic code ATGC are like the 26 letters of the alphabet ABC…XYZ. Just as the same 26 alphabet letters can be used to write very different messages, so can the same 4 genetic codes be used to “write” very different creatures. “In the Beginning was the Word … and the Word was made Flesh”. That’s us! The Hellenistic Jewish philosopher St.John (of Patmos?) then goes on to paraphrase Plato by adding “and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God”. Quantum physicists take this seriously, ever since Einstein and Ehrenfest proved that matter has some of the properties of words (matter as information).
ps My last sentence (just above this one) about the Unity of Life being equally acceptable to a mystic as to a molecular biologist, is well illustrated by Lindsay’s query, “When did hominids become “brothers in Adam”? St.Francis the great Christian mystic would say, “My brother, the Wolf” and “My brother, the Sun”. And a molecular biologist would trace the kinship of all living things to the very structure of matter, created in that infinitesmably small fraction of Time inside that infinitesmably small point of Space when God said, “Let there be Light” — and there it was: Light the source of other Material particles; Light plus Matter the source of Life. A far cry from the lumbering, literal-minded 19th-century materialist like Smerdiakov? in The Brothers Karamazov, who sneered, “How could God create Light before the Sun and Moon?”
That’s precisely my question.
I need to spend more time on my Bible studies; you, biology. I’m not sure if you are denying that we share many genes with the rest of life on earth. I’m not sure what you mean by “total being/behaviour”. We share much of our biochemistry. Why do you think this entails that we must share the same behaviour?
You need to spend some time on linguistics.
Open the link if you require clarification – that’s why it’s there.
Then look up the meaning of ‘implication’.
Glad to help.
Thanks for the link. I had overlooked it. I’m puzzled why you would think biological and social evolution cannot address the question of the invention of language. There is a huge literature. And what are you proposing instead that dispels the mystery? (And I’m still not clear why you think sharing a significant chunk of biochemistry entails sharing outward behaviour.)
That ‘huge literature’ does not answer the question of language origins.
Much less why only humans generate symbolic systems /art /representations.
Nó other species even conceives of the imago.
As I cannot cure your conceptual difficulties, I’ll leave it there.
Before I am cast into outer darkness, may I thank Eimear for his comments and the link. What I said was not clear, it seems. I did not mean to say that science had yet provided an explanation of language, or consciousness. Far from it. It has made impressive progress, and concocted many “Just So” stories, but might never be able to provide a full explanation. Eimear has pinpointed precisely one of the puzzles where the “God of the gaps” argument may finally come good. I doubt it. I think Eimear does not doubt it. It would have been good to have a longer discussion of a fascinating topic (perhaps if I had managed to make myself clear and avoid misleading). Anyway, thank you to Eimear for very interesting comments. Apologies for my “conceptual difficulties”.
Evolution theory and teachings of the Church don’t necessarily contradict. Whilst the bible (Genesis) tells us that the creation took seven days, mankind doesn’t even remotely know the meaning of time in this context. We take a 24 hour day as granted. We take a second as granted. To assume that a human created second is of the same length as a second for God is naive.
That kind of ‘logic’ reveals the true aim of the whole preceding verbiage: exonerating the Jews of the Orthodox genocide.
There we have it. And I suspect Anonymous does not intend what he says to be “non-commutative” or non-literal.
BRAVO! You caught me. The ‘anonymous’ above was me. I was trying to discreetly inject a venom filled antisemitic comment in this thread to basically void stuff that I had written elsewhere. Now that you have unmasked me, I have to plead guilty: I am a Nazi and my goal is to contribute to a new Holocaust were all Jews would be killed. After them – Gypsies too. And Communists. And, of course, homosexuals. I want the entire planet to be populated by a Master Race of Germanic heroes and all that brown skinned riff-raff removed from mandkind’s gene pool. I also want school to only teach Creationism and I want to finally and officially debunk the lies about the trips to the Moon and the round earth. In the dictionary, under “bigot” you can see a photo of me.
Now, kindly – go back to wherever you came from and let the rest of us have an intelligent discussion, pretty please?
PS: seriously? You are banned under rule #11, congrats!
Thank you Saker.
It was very interesting read, and I’ve to reread it more. Bishop’s thinking was too difficult for me to read in English, but I found it in Russian:
Well it significantly reverses my current views on the subject.
I love the good bishop’s brief tutorial on the fall of man and the role of the Jews in bringing God’s word to all peoples. It helps illustrate the awesome responsibility that Christians have to do the same. That both Jews and Christians largely turned away from that task is the real tragedy of humanity.
(Yet I do not agree that Jews are not a race…nor would many Jews agree with that. I have read articles in which they themselves argue quite convincingly that DNA markers can identify a Jew from a Gentile. I do not pretend to understand this science completely, but certainly if they identify themselves in such terms, and believe it, then it certainly would effect their own worldview. I have to ask, if they are (or were) God’s chosen people, then who are “they” exactly? What makes one “chosen”, if not some connection by blood? Are “they” now gone? If so, then who is it that now identify themselves as Jews? If we cannot even define the term, “Jew”, then how can it be intelligently discussed?)
Be that as it may, it seems to me that the new chosen people are the Christians. God wanted to use us to bring men closer to him. We have failed in many ways, but it’s important to note also the successes, as bishop Nathaniel notes, in bringing God’s word to all the world.
Yet we erred, especially in the west, in allowing greed to corrupt us. That is what caused the exploitation of native peoples in the Americas, so that even as we brought them the cross we brought them the chains as well. Now, we, especially those of us in rich countries, no longer even give lip service to God for the most part. We are engaged in all manner of immorality and hardly even blink an eye at it anymore. Far from loving our fellow man, we seek too assuage a guilty conscience via the cheap and easy mechanism of distant secular charity. This neither elevates the giver or the receiver.
Interestingly, the history of the Russian Orthodox in the Americas was quite different than that of the Conquistadores. Yes, the native Alaskans were treated badly by some but the overall impression that I have is that the Russian saints who were early visitors to these areas truly and selflessly brought God to the native peoples.
Why is it that the conversion approaches of the Orthodox and the Catholics were so different? I would argue that it stems from the Orthodox view of man’s spirituality. The Orthodox do not try to explain every detail of their faith in scientific detail. They will simply say that often they do not have the answer, or the answer is to be found in God or in the inner kingdom. Some things, IOW, are mysteries. It is this mystic sense, that the kingdom of God is experiential and personal, that offers a quiet and contemplative view to its believers. This sense was further solidified by the cutting off of the Orthodox world from the Latins by war, geography, and poor communications.
In any event, if the kingdom of God is within, then man can only be drawn to God via prayer, meditation, and fasting…not by outward political or earthly affiliations or force of arms. That is why no great Russian armies accompanied the arrival of the Orthodox in America. The empire was always within.
But the Orthodox world was nearly destroyed by two world wars and the arrival of Bolshevism/Communism in the 20th century. Now, it is resurgent, growing inside of a protective bubble supplied, ironically, by outside sanctions and a protective state apparatus. What can the world learn spiritually from those inside Russia now? And, when inevitably, the sanctions are removed and Russia is at long last open once again to the world, how long will she last before succumbing to idolatry and commercialism?
Back to the point, I think, of the article: what role did the Jews play in all of this? Forgive me, for I lost track of that somewhere along the way. I tend to agree that without Judaism Communism would not exist, so in that sense they very nearly managed to destroy the Church. But why did they attack the church with such ferocity? Because the tsars were Orthodox? Because of revenge for persecution against them? Because they see in the Russian people a special spirituality that does not easily succumb to Satan? Because they truly believed in their cause of Communism? If so, Communism was their religion, which they carried out with diabolical zeal (the kind of commitment, ironically, that God chose them for to begin with). I do not know…maybe all of the above.
If we look at the role of Jews in Europe during the Ottoman empire they filled a niche in which they acted as tax collectors and money lenders. Naturally, that caused resentment among the Gentiles under the Muslim yoke, so when the Muslim invaders were driven out so were the Jews. This bred more resentment.
I am sorry if I have rambled. I admit that while I have thought long and hard about this, my understanding is probably too uninformed or primitive in many respects. I look forward to reading more leaned responses.
Jews are not a race. You can easily deduct that from the diversity of phenotypes: from nordic to dark-skinned Amhara.
The 2 ways someone becomes a Jew is either by being born to a Jewish mother of by Jewish Orthodox conversion. A sizable part of Jews are descendants patrilineal descendants of the ancient Hebrews but there is also a significant part of Jews who are descendants of converts. During the Roman era, before Christianity became predominant, many people converted or became “judaizing”.
Regarding genes, to my knowledge, the researches made had the purpose of demonstrating that most Jews share common ancestors, as should be the case since the were initially a tribe and usually maintained endogamy. But given the fact that you can become Jew by conversion, obviously it cannot be a race.
One of the most interesting findings in that area is the Cohen haplotype. Cohens are the ancient Jewish priests. They have, still today, the strictest endogamy laws and you can only be a priest if your father was from the priestly tribe and married a Jewish woman by birth, not divorced. Apparently, most Cohens in the world have this haplotype which is in the Y chromosome and thus, can only be transmitted from father to son. But still, it does not mean they are a race.
Other comment: Judaism has nothing to do with Communism. Secular Jews have had a role in the Communist revolution and subsequent rule, but not Rabbis or Judaism. Actually, the leading Rabbis saw Communism as a big threat to Judaism, which happened to be justified. In 2 generations they secularized most Russian Jews (who were religious before)
What you wrote about Jews an Communism is interesting. There are a lot of things that go in the same direction regarding capitalism, neo-conservatism, etc.
Actually, the leading Rabbis, a long time ago, already warned the Jews that if they keep the Jewish Laws and mind their own things, they will be left alone. But if they try to resemble the Gentiles, these will reject them and the Jews will suffer.
So the Communists, “Anglo-Zionist”, and all the other denominations in which you find that Jews had potentially a bad influence, are actually against what the Rabbis prescribed. They aren’t a manifestation of Judaism as is often read, but precisely a negation of the Jews’ real function on earth.
Even the Zionist project was initially not accepted by the leading Rabbis as it put aside God and Jewish Law. They fought against it. Now that the state of Israel exists, we are all on the same boat so, most Religious factions will not work against the state apart form the Neturei Karta tiny minority. But still, among the Ashkenazim religious Jews, the State is still seen as “They” vs “Us”.
Among, the jews, the christians and the muslims, there is a total misunderstanding of God. For most of them God is the boss managing his own creation, which is external to him. He made the creation out of nothing. Men and women have special status in this creation as they can have a future in paradise or hell pending God’s judgment which nobody can understand.
For me that is a nonsense. God’s creation is a part of himself. In making the creation, God is burning himself by allowing parts of him to get alive. That is God’s charity. That is where God is Christ. He does not do this to have some slaves adoring him. It is pure generosity. He is giving his life for the creation.
Furthermore, He knows that this creattion have to get away from Him to avoid being burn by his radiance. The human world is driven by Satan or Cain to grow protected from God’s radiance
People can decide to get away from the human world to try to become a fractal image of God but very few will be successful in this adventure.
Coming back to the Jewish question. This community has been succesful in dealing among the powerful people: 1) the aristocrats, the ones having made their wealth by the sword, 2) the priests having made their fortune by pretending having a direct relation to god.
The jewish community being a minority, in order to survive, has develop some paranoia against all the others, often justified by some rejection induced by their success.
Their alliance with some Calvinistsin England and in the US has allows them, today, to reach at last the power.
Most people have not realized that the jewish’s paranoia has generated a revenge feeling against all the countries where they have been living for centuries. People animated by a revenge feeling are not nice.
I am a peasant. I am among those totally despised by all the powerful people. When I see the way the jewish community has been dealing with the russian people after the revolution and the palestinians today, it looks to me that the jewish community having reached the power is not better than the former aristocrats or the priests.
Among, the jews, the christians and the muslims, there is a total misunderstanding of God
Good thing that you are here to correct all these ignoramuses :-)
It is not a question of ignorance. The truth is not hidden in a book written by men and the fact that they are old books is not making them more reliable. Incoherences in the Bible, the New Testament or the Coran is such that to believe in those books requires oneself to shut his intelligence or just to shup_up, to avoid the Inquisition of the power in place.
Today these books tend to be replaced by the story of the Holaucost which has the same credibility as the three former books and terror and laws are being used to oblige people to believe in it or to shut-up.
It is not a question of ignorance but a question of accepting every thing you are being told by the authority or daring opening the Pandora box.
The truth is not hidden in a book written by men
And the evidence for that statement is?
Incoherences in the Bible, the New Testament or the Coran is such that to believe in those books requires oneself to shut his intelligence
Ah, okay, I get it. Jews, Christians and Muslims are not ignoramuses. They are just stupid.
Okay, thanks for a truly precious insight!
“Furthermore, He knows that this creattion have to get away from Him to avoid being burn by his radiance. The human world is driven by Satan or Cain to grow protected from God’s radiance”
You’re advocating on behalf of evil?
Pope Francis kissing the hands of holocaust survivors
A welcome essay from the Saker on a very thorny issue. Thank you!
Here are some pdfs to add to the discussion.
Solzhenitsyn–200 Years Together (Complete)
Interview with Solzhenitsyn about “200 Years Together”
Solzhenitsyn breaks last taboo of the revolution
Barnes Review–Russia and the Jews [friendly review of 200 Years Together]
Hillaire Belloc–The Jews
Link was removed as it was not about the book. Please send correct link to book. Thx. Mod
The following text is a summary of six books written by Hervé Ryssen,
published between 2005 and 2010, constituting the most important
study on the Jewish mind ever published. All the quotations that you
are about to read are precisely referenced in at least one of these books.
The present booklet consists for the most part of quotations from
famous authors, with particular emphasis on well-known films. The
number of references is nevertheless sufficient to enable the reader to
observe the extraordinary homogeneity of Jewish cosmopolitan
thought, over the centuries and across all borders.
Sorry about that! Thank you for the heads up.
Anyway, this should work:
A thoroughly enjoyable read, thank you. In fact I have never seen the relationship (title) laid out in such a way before; in such detail: The story (allegory?) of the prodigal son is perhaps inspirational in this regard. The great Russian writer F Dostoevsky too points to the spiritual nature of this war, so that I hold fast to the principle of free will allowed by our Lord God permitting at all times a return to the correct path.
The statements regarding Russias’ failure I found surprising: I would like to learn more about this as I feel there is potentially an enlightenment to be discovered here.
Recently I watched a video that popped up on my Youtube feed titled simply AGAFIA. It was hugely interesting for the questions it raised, which I now wonder may be a small part of Russias failing. At 52 mins it is not a drain on time resources and is worth watching.
Thanks ever so much for sharing this wonderfully important and insightful material. I was born into a sort of apostate Protestantism, the son of a man who was both a Methodist minister and a 32nd degree freemason, if you can imagine such a thing. So, I was born into an epistemology of contradiction. And I have been seeking the Truth ever since.
To my way of thinking, this important series of essays explains to a fallen world all we really need to know about God’s plan for salvation and the tragic rejection of that plan by so many. Praying the Jesus prayer reverently and unceasingly, I hope to be counted among those who accept the loving and wondrous plan of Almighty God.
Thanks, again, ever so much for sharing this wonderful and important information.
Thanks for your comment and your kind words. The Jesus prayer is, indeed, arguably one of the highest expression of traditional Christian spirituality because it combines the ideal form of prayer with the purest synthesis of Orthodox dogmatic theology. However, I would caution you against the belief that this prayer can be separated from the whole of orthopraxis. In fact, this form of prayer can only truly be experienced as part of the a full life in the Church and Her Mysteries. Furthermore, that kind of prayer should only be practiced under the guidance and supervision of a spiritual father as there is always a risk of spiritual delusion (https://orthodoxwiki.org/Prelest) for the person attempting to practice this form of prayer on his own. Don’t let this prayer become a substitute for a full life in Christ and His Church.
Thanks ever so much for the gift of your feedback. I have learned over many years that feedback is indeed a gift. And I accept this gift gratefully.
Years ago, I had a spiritual father, also of the Protestant tradition, although nonetheless sincere, who advised that prayer with Scripture was mysticism and Scripture without prayer was legalism. Of course, I have studied the Orthodox Way, read much, and even attended several Divine Liturgies over the years. Happily, we have a parish of the ROCOR near our home. And I shall get myself on down there for the Divine Liturgy, Vespers, et cetera, with the intent, God willing, of participating in all of the divine mysteries of and praxis of, His Church.
Saker, I believe that the work you do here with your website is the most important and efficacious internet outreach extant. I have been edified by your articles, your book, your engaging and insightful commentary on military and political situations, and your wondrous Orthodox spirituality and erudition. May the Lord bless you and keep you and make His face to shine upon you and give you peace.
Thanks for your reply and for reassuring me. I have seen the Jesus Prayer so often completely misunderstood by very well meaning people that I felt that I ought to warn you, but I see that in your case my concern was not warranted.
Thank you for your kind words of support.
@both a Methodist minister and a 32nd degree freemason, if you can imagine such a thing
Free-Masonry is the spawn of Protestantism. There is no contradiction. But, there is no Truth either in both of them.
To quote the Saker’s text: “Contrary to the impression one might get listening to the AM dial, the Christian faith is not one which can be taught, or even intelligently discussed, while driving, with “commercial breaks” or even in a short, 300-400 words text. It is one which is first and foremost lived, experienced, and one which centers on asceticism and prayer, not scholastic deductions.”
Comment: “prayer”—yes, but not asceticism which is a practice of “punishing the physical body” due to some belief that the physical body and its needs and wants are some source of spiritual downfall, moral inferiority, and are sinful, “against God”.
Real, ancient, traditional (Orthodox) Christianity *never* taught this kind of nonsense which was *only* taught by the Latins! Before making that kind of categorical (and utterly ignorant) statements, try to at least learn the basics, okay?
[My God we really live in a world and time of crass ignorance! It takes my breath away to see how absolutely and totally ignorant so many people in the West are about Christianity. They don’t even know the basics. Next they are going accuse us of drinking blood and being cannibals I suppose. Oh God, give us patience!!]
—Lord Jesus never lived an ascetical lifestyle.—
Let’s see: is He famous for this retreat in the desert or his lush orgies? How about Saint John the Baptist? Dude, do you even use your head before posting this nonsense?!
The foremost and greatest heretics arose in the early centuries right after pagan Roman persecutions of Christians finally ceased, and they thought and believed that by living lives of perpetual suffering and affliction and thus supposedly imitating Jesus crucified on the cross they would come closer to God, that this was the best and superior method to approach God. But according to Apostle Paul, God is that in which we all live and move and have our being [see Acts 17:27-28]. He can be quite well defined as “the whole truth” and I would propose that science and the scientific method is another perfectly legitimate way of approaching God as the whole truth just as prayer and other more mental-spiritual methods.—But the cadres of monks and nuns who militantly proclaimed that their life of self-denial and self-affliction and supposed imitation of Jesus crucified on the cross was a morally and spiritually superior lifestyle presumably “closer to God” and “closer to Jesus” committed a serious error, right in the earliest centuries of the church.
Okay, that does it. I bestow upon you the title of “winner of the worst most offensive and arrogant ignoramus contest” in this thread. You even beat Lindsey, which is not small feat. Bravo :-)
A Question Concerning the Second Vatican Council
There is a certain question with regard to Vatican II which, as far as we know, has not received the consideration that it deserves. There would clearly be no longer any point in examining the claims of that council’s organizers and champions that it took place entirely beneath the guidance of the Holy Spirit—claims that have been reiterated ad nauseam for the last twenty years. On the one hand no evidence of the Truth of this claim has ever been forthcoming; and on the other hand the lamentable results of the Council are a powerful indication that the “Guidance” came from elsewhere. But this very fact must have prompted many to ask: “Why was it allowed to happen?”, or at least—“since evil there must be”—“Did the Holy Spirit do nothing to protect the Church? Were there no adequate signs or warning from Heaven before the disaster had taken place?” The answer to this question—or, more precisely, the answer that is offered here—begins over half a century ago.
I view them both (judaism and christianity) as peas from the same lying pod and emerging from the same jew pen. The bits of the new testament however that were recorded as spoken by Jesus himself, assuming he existed are nearly pure eastern philosophy and contain some truth, a “limited hangout” if you will.
You cannot get truth from a story, especially not from a dubious false history of a desert tribe and their self proclaimed “jealous” god , a violent crazed lunatic demiurge like jehovah. Your own self nature is god and the reason you know yahweh is not worthy of your consideration.
You have something called a conscience…proof…also intiuition….no outside source needed….that is if you are not in inbred psycopath with neanderthal khazar genes bred by parents who insist that duality and matter/wealth/ getting “ahead” is all there is to this sorry-ass business called life.
Yep, the old Testament is nonsense, only the new Testament should matter to Christians, irrespective of how eastern philosophical it is.
Was reading an interesting doc from 1934 found on UNZ called Jews Must Live (JML.pdf or JML.txt) that confirms to me that the old Testament is just nonsense. The author, a Jew, basically states that before the Jews were able to conquer themselves a territory, they used “more peaceful and delicate methods of conquest such as cheating, lying and pimping”. And when bigger nations conquered them in turn they had to revert back to the more peaceful methods of cheating, lying and pimping methods to get ahead, which they use to this day.
The author points out that Abram pimped his wife out, in Egypt and elsewhere, Isaac his son was into the same “business”, calling his wife his sister, etc. So Jews were, from the word go, nothing but a nomadic, gypsy like bunch of thieves always on lookout for the next opportunity for a take.
Interesting that you mention “conscience…intuition…no outside source needed” . The author states that “anti-Semitism is so instinctive that it may quite simply be called one of the primal instincts of mankind, one of the important instincts by which the race helps to preserve itself against total destruction. … It is a deeply hidden instinct with which every man is born. He remains unconscious of it, as of all other instincts of self preservation, until something happens to awaken it.”
Also, but from somewhere else, “We are born, and we die; and in between the strong take advantage of the weak. That is all there is” to life. So to prove that you belong among the strong, you have to take advantage of the weakest, the kiddies. Its sort of like a gang initiation ritual.
The full quote is actually “What is there about a man or woman which is so noble it must be preserved? We are born, and we die; and in between the strong take advantage of the weak. That is all there is. The peoples are no more than animals, evolved to a higher faculty than the beasts of the field. They must be culled and herded like other beasts when their numbers grow to large, for the benefit of the strong. There is no deeper meaning to life than this power.” Mary Corran, Imperial Light (SciFi book), an ex-Wall Street type. So everyone is an animal, the rich and the poor, the strong and the weak, Jew and Gentile. The only thing that matters is being a strong animal and using whatever means to retain that strength because there is no deeper meaning to life than this power on this animal planet.
some few of you may be interested in this — and this is for those very few
“The book contains all the teaching of all prophets as has been handed down from time immemorial, and because the teaching of the prophets, i.e. teaching of the truth, teaching of the spirit, teaching of the life from Henoch (Enoch), Elia (Elijah), Jesaja (Isaiah), Jeremia (Jeremiah), Jmmanuel (Immanuel), Muhammad (Mohammed) and Billy (BEAM) is therefore one and the same, certain parts of the teaching appear in multiple forms and in different phrasings but always formed in accordance with all of the corresponding and necessary method of explanation of the proclaimers of various times.”
“The sad reality is that we now live in a post-Christan and pseudo-pagan society (I say pseudo because the original pagans were extremely receptive to the Christian message, modern pseudo-pagans are just about the most incapable of even understanding it).”
Or, maybe, just unwilling to accept it?
Really enjoyed his Grace’s and yours.
By your definitions I declare myself a racist and antisemite. I tire of lying to myself.
As for his Grace, I disagree. The Jews started out as chroniclers and ended up thieves. The Pharisees stole God and Christ the Jew gave him back. But the Pharisees keep right on stealing. But I have Christ – so let them.
Indeed, the suggested readings of Saint Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho”, and Saint Chysostom’s “Kata loudaion (Homilies Against the Jews – Adversus Judaeos)” are essential reads. Thank you Saker for such enlightening recommendations.
From a Conservative Catholic point of View ..almost the same is expressed
” The Revolutionary Jewish Spirit and its Impact on World History ” by E Michael Jones
( https://www.amazon.es/Jewish-Revolutionary-Spirit-Impact-History/dp/0929891074 )
A book … a fountain ..of historical details describing how the West and Christianity reached to the point of OBLIVION ..where it currently stumbles on
As to the Establishment of CHRISTIANITY … from the very beginning … i recommend the interested Reader GIBBONS : ” The History of the Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire ”
( http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/g#a375 )
Those who really want to know WHO the JEWS are .. should study the religious beliefs of the Bedouines on the Arab Peninsula in the Time prior to Muhammed … as well as the MERCANTILE EMPIRES the JEWISH TRIBE established ..in the course of History up until today …
Thanks for this extremely interesting monograph.
I did not know much about the Orthodox Church’s view on Jews & Judaism and the relations between the two. So I very grateful for this insight.
Here you have my comments, from a Jew by choice:
In light of the position of the Saker that the Jewish beliefs are inherently racist (since it separates, in a way many ways between Jews and Gentiles), I am a bit surprised to see that according to the Orthodox Church, the ancient Jews* were “the best flower of humanity”. He also states that “the first half of the divine plan was dignifiedly and rightly completed by Israel” and “Nothing can take away this greatest glory from Israel, from this supernatural greatness of its fate. Even everything that follows cannot destroy the debt of gratitude that humanity owes to Israel. And what can also not destroy this debt of gratitude is, that having taken great glory upon itself, but also the terrible weight of Divine election, Israel carried this yoke for the other peoples.”
Frankly, I was really not expecting such an amount of superlatives. The first question I have is basically, if it was God’s plan, how can The Saker (and the Christian Orthodox?) consider it racist? We see clearly from what you call the Old Testament that God had different plans for different peoples and that, for the ancient Jews, He had a particular objective, separate from other peoples. Even if they were obsolete, still, once God mandated it, as acknowledged by the Archbishop, and thus calling it racist is sort of calling God racist. Again, I am not talking of things in the Talmud, there are enough “shocking” things in the Old Testament itself that anyone can read and understand by himself.
* I still call the ancient Jews as Jews since, following the exile and subsequent assimilation of the 10 tribes (in the 8th century BE), most of the remaining Hebrews were of Juda’s tribe (with a minority from the tribes of Levi and Benjamin) and hence, the name “Jews”.
“Israel has been cast out. To be more precise, itself (the chosen one of the Lord) cast away its chosen nature, refused to serve the One who had chosen him and fulfil His plans.”
“Old Israel also infinitely hates the crude pagan peoples that were called by Divine summons to take its place at the head of the earthly tribes.”
“Israel begins a fight. This is a very unequal struggle. The world belongs to the Christian and pagan peoples. Israel, having betrayed God, has lost everything that was given by God for the fulfilment of His task except for the inalienable internal gift of God: natural spiritual strength.”
No surprise here. It’s also the Catholic Church belief (which I know better since I am a former Catholic). But what I find interesting is that The Author mentions a list of curses from the Torah/Old Testament.
Actually, if you read from the Ancient Testament itself, you’ll see that the Jews are promised a list of blessings if they follow God’s ways. Then there is a list of curses (the ones the author cited) if the Jews don’t follow God’s ways.
Then, interestingly, there is a text that is usually neither cited nor commented: a prophecy which states that, despite being scattered among the peoples, God will bring the Jews back to the land of Israel, do them good, and will bring their hearts back to him (Deuteronomy 30:1-10). Read it here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+30&version=NIV
Or in extenso here:
“1 When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes[a] and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. 4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors. 6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. 8 You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today. 9 Then the Lord your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your ancestors, 10 if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”
Well, you could have thought that the Jews were cast out until the end 19th / early 20th century. But if so, this prophecy should have been cancelled; we should haven’t witness it. But we see the fulfilling of this prophecy for several decades now. Not only the return to the holy land and the increasing prosperity, but also the fact that there is a big movement of return to Orthodox practice.
It seems that the fulfillment of this prophecy has shaken the Catholic Church hardcore supersessionism for a watered one at the Vatican II council. And John Paul II himself said that the Old covenant with the Jewish people “has never been abrogated by God”. It easy to say that they shouldn’t have done that. But how could they ignore it?
I find Solnik episode not very interesting as there are clear criteria for who the Jewish Messiah. One of the most important of them: he’s supposed to be a great Torah scholar. Being a descendant of the House of David is really not enough; there are probably thousands of them.
“Having reached the desired Kingdom of Israel”. The current state of Israel is far from the Kingdom of Israel that we are waiting. Only the Messiah will be able to bring it and restore the Jewish Law as the law of the land.
Last comment on this section: We clearly see that when the Jewish Messiah that we are waiting for will arrive, he will be interpreted as the Antichrist that is described here. The Antichrist is credited with rebuilding the Temple, precisely what the Messiah should do. So it can easily be understood why there will be the war of Gog and Magog announced in Ezekiel 38-39 in which most peoples will turn against us. It’s also a prophecy that’s difficult to understand if we were cast out. It’s a war against the people of Israel, in Israel. Even if the Orthodox Church considers to have inherited the status of people of Israel, still, this should happen in the Land of Israel against the people ruling there.
The other Gog and Magog prophecy can be found in Zakaria 14. Although less favorable to the Jewish people (more deaths and atrocities) At the end, the people of the World will come to the Jerusalem Temple during the Jewish Festival of Souccot to praise God. So, positive (Ezekiel) or negative (Zakaria) the outcome is the same.
I can only recommend any believer to read the scriptures (Ancient Testament) by himself, from beginning to end, to get an opinion by himself