[This analysis was written for the Unz Review]
In previous articles about this topic I have tried to set the context and explain why most Orthodox Churches are still used as pawns in purely political machinations and how the most commentators who discuss these issues today are using words and concepts in a totally twisted, secular and non-Christian way (which is about as absurd as discussing medicine while using a vague, misunderstood and generally non-medical terminology). I have also written articles trying to explain how the concept of “Church” is completely misunderstood nowadays and how many Orthodox Churches today have lost their original Patristic mindset. Finally, I have tried to show the ancient spiritual roots of modern russophobia and how the AngloZionist Empire might try to save the Ukronazi regime in Kiev by triggering a religious crisis in the Ukraine. It is my hope that these articles will provide a useful context to evaluate and discuss the current crisis between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate.
My intention today is to look at the unfolding crisis from a more “modern” point of view and try to evaluate only what the political and social consequences of the latest developments might be in the short and mid term. I will begin by a short summary.
The current context: a summary
The Patriarchate of Constantinople has taken the official decision to:
- Declare that the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to unilaterally grant autocephaly (full independence) to any other Church with no consultations with any the other Orthodox Churches.
- Cancel the decision by the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysios IV in 1686 transferring the Kiev Metropolia (religious jurisdiction overseen by a Metropolite) to the Moscow Patriarchate (a decision which no Patriarch of Constantinople contested for three centuries!)
- Lift the anathema pronounced against the “Patriarch” Filaret Denisenko by the Moscow Patriarchate (in spite of the fact that the only authority which can lift an anathema is the one which pronounced it in the first place)
- Recognize as legitimate the so-called “Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate” which it previously had declared as illegitimate and schismatic.
- Grant actual grand full autocephaly to a future (and yet to be defined) “united Ukrainian Orthodox Church”
Most people naturally focus on this last element, but this might be a mistake, because while illegally granting autocephaly to a mix of nationalist pseudo-Churches is most definitely a bad decision, to act like some kind of “Orthodox Pope” and claim rights which only belong to the entire Church is truly a historical mistake. Not only that, but this mistake now forces every Orthodox Christian to either accept this as a fait accompli and submit to the megalomania of the wannabe Ortho-Pope of the Phanar, or to reject such unilateral and totally illegal action or to enter into open opposition. And this is not the first time such a situation has happened in the history of the Church. I will use an historical parallel to make this point.
The historical context:
The Church of Rome and the rest of the Christian world were already on a collision course for several centuries before the famous date of 1054 when Rome broke away from the Christian world. Whereas for centuries Rome had been the most steadfast bastion of resistance against innovations and heresies, the influence of the Franks in the Church of Rome eventually resulted (after numerous zig-zags on this topic) in a truly disastrous decision to add a single world (filioque – “and the son” in Latin) to the Symbol of Faith (the Credo in Latin). What made that decision even worse was the fact that the Pope of Rome also declared that he had the right to impose that addition upon all the other Christian Churches, with no conciliar discussion or approval. It is often said that the issue of the filioque is “obscure” and largely irrelevant, but that is just a reflection of the theological illiteracy of those making such statements as, in reality, the addition of the filioque completely overthrows the most crucial and important Trinitarian and Christological dogmas of Christianity. But what *is* true is that the attempt to unilaterally impose this heresy on the rest of the Christian world was at least as offensive and, really, as sacrilegious as the filioque itself because it undermined the very nature of the Church. Indeed, the Symbol of Faith defines the Church as “catholic” (Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν”) meaning not only “universal” but also “whole” or “all-inclusive”. In ecclesiological terms this “universality” is manifested in two crucial ways:
First, all Churches are equal, there is no Pope, no “historical see” granting any primacy just as all the Apostles of Christ and all Orthodox bishops are also equals; the Head of the Church is Christ Himself, and the Church is His Theandric Body filled with the Holy Spirit. Oh I know, to say that the Holy Spirit fills the Church is considered absolutely ridiculous in our 21st century post-Christian world, but check out these words from the Book of Acts: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15:28) which clearly show that the members of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem clearly believed and proclaimed that their decisions were guided by the Holy Spirit. Anyone still believing that will immediately see why the Church needs no “vicar of Christ” or any “earthly representative” to act in Christ’s name during His absence. In fact, Christ Himself clearly told us “lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matt 28:20). If a Church needs a “vicar” – then Christ and the Holy Spirit are clearly not present in that Church. QED.
Second, crucial decisions, decisions which affect the entire Church, are only taken by a Council of the entire Church, not unilaterally by any one man or any one Church. These are really the basics of what could be called “traditional Christian ecclesiology 101” and the blatant violation of this key ecclesiological dogma by the Papacy in 1054 was as much a cause for the historical schism between East and West (really, between Rome and the rest of Christian world) as was the innovation of the filioque itself.
I hasten to add that while the Popes were the first ones to claim for themselves an authority only given to the full Church, they were not the only ones (by the way, this is a very good working definition of the term “Papacy”: the attribution to one man of all the characteristics belonging solely to the entire Church). In the early 20th century the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople, Albania, Alexandria, Antioch, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, and Romania got together and, under the direct influence of powerful Masonic lodges, decided to adopt the Gregorian Papal Calendar (named after the 16th century Pope Gregory XIII). The year was 1923, when the entire Russian Orthodox Church was being literally crucified on the modern Golgotha of the Bolshevik regime, but that did not prevent these Churches from calling their meeting “pan Orthodox”. Neither did the fact that the Russian, Serbian, Georgian, Jerusalem Church and the Holy Mountain (aka “Mount Athos”) rejected this innovation stop them. As for the Papal Calendar itself, the innovators “piously” re-branded it as “improved Julian” and other such euphemism to conceal the real intention behind this.
Finally, even the fact that this decision also triggered a wave of divisions inside their own Churches was not cause for them to reconsider or, even less so, to repent. Professor C. Troitsky was absolutely correct when he wrote that “there is no doubt that future historians of the Orthodox Church will be forced to admit that the Congress of 1923 was the saddest event of Church life in the 20th century” (for more on this tragedy see here, here and here). Here again, one man, Ecumenical Patriarch Meletius IV (Metaxakis) tried to “play Pope” and his actions resulted in a massive upheaval which ripped through the entire Orthodox world.
More recently, the Patriarch of Constantinople tried, once again, to convene what he would want to be an Orthodox “Ecumenical Council” under his personal authority when in 2016 (yet another) “pan Orthodox” council was convened on the island of Crete which was attended by the Churches of Alexandria , Jerusalem , Serbia , Romania , Cyprus , Greece, Poland , Albania and of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. The Churches of Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia, and Antioch refused to attend (the US OCA – was not invited). Most observers agreed that the Moscow Patriarchate played a key role in undermining what was clearly to be a “robber” council which would have introduced major (and fully non-Orthodox) innovations. The Patriarch of Constantinople never forgave the Russians for torpedoing his planned “ecumenical” council.
Some might have noticed that a majority of local Churches did attend both the 1923 and the 2016 wannabe “pan Orthodox” councils. Such an observation might be very important in a Latin or Protestant context, but in the Orthodox context is is absolutely meaningless for the following reasons:
The theological context:
In the history of the Church there have been many “robber” councils (meaning illegitimate, false, councils) which were attended by a majority of bishops of the time, and even a majority of the Churches; in this article I mentioned the life of Saint Maximos the Confessor (which you can read in full here) as a perfect example of how one single person (not even a priest!) can defend true Christianity against what could appear at the time as the overwhelming number of bishops representing the entire Church. But, as always, these false bishops were eventually denounced and the Truth of Orthodoxy prevailed.
Likewise, at the False Union of Florence, when all the Greek delegates signed the union with the Latin heretics, and only one bishop refused to to do (Saint Mark of Ephesus), the Latin Pope declared in despair “and so we have accomplished nothing!”. He was absolutely correct – that union was rejected by the “Body” of the Church and the names of those apostates who signed it will remain in infamy forever. I could multiply the examples, but what is crucial here is to understand that majorities, large numbers or, even more so, the support of secular authorities are absolutely meaningless in Christian theology and in the history of the Church and that, with time, all the lapsed bishops who attended robber councils are always eventually denounced and the Orthodox truth always proclaimed once again. It is especially important to keep this in mind during times of persecution or of brutal interference by secular authorities because even when they *appear* to have won, their victory is always short-lived.
I would add that the Russian Orthodox Church is not just “one of the many” local Orthodox Churches. Not only is the Russian Orthodox Church by far the biggest Orthodox Church out there, but Moscow used to be the so-called “Third Rome”, something which gives the Moscow Patriarchate a lot of prestige and, therefore, influence. In secular terms of prestige and “street cred” the fact that the Russians did not participate in the 1923 and 2016 congresses is much bigger a blow to its organizers than if, say, the Romanians had boycotted it. This might not be important to God or for truly pious Christians, but I assure you that this is absolutely crucial for the wannabe “Eastern Pope” of the Phanar…
Who is really behind this latest attack on the Church?
So let’s begin by stating the obvious: for all his lofty titles (“His Most Divine All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch“ no less!), the Patriarch of Constantinople (well, of the Phanar, really), is nothing but a puppet in the hands of the AngloZionist Empire. An ambitious and vain puppet for sure, but a puppet nonetheless. To imagine that the Uber-loser Poroshenko would convince him to pick a major fight with the Moscow Patriarchate is absolutely laughable and totally ridiculous. Some point out that the Patriarch of Constantinople is a Turkish civil servant. While technically true, this does not suggest that Erdogan is behind this move either: right now Erdogan badly needs Russia on so many levels that he gains nothing and risks losing a lot by alienating Moscow. No, the real initiator of this entire operation is the AngloZionist Empire and, of course, the Papacy (which has always tried to create an “Orthodoxerein Ukraine” from the “The Eastern Crusade” and “Northern Crusades” of Popes Innocent III and Gregory IX to the Nazi Ukraine of Bandera – see here for details).
Why would the Empire push for such a move? Here we can find a mix of petty and larger geostrategic reasons. First, the petty ones: they range from the usual impotent knee-jerk reflex to do something, anything, to hurt Russia to pleasing of the Ukronazi emigrés in the USA and Canada. The geostrategic ones range from trying to save the highly unpopular Ukronazi regime in Kiev to breaking up the Orthodox world thereby weakening Russian soft-power and influence. This type of “logic” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Orthodox world today. Here is why:
The typical level of religious education of Orthodox Christians is probably well represented by the famous Bell Curve: some are truly completely ignorant, most know a little, and a few know a lot. As long as things were reasonably peaceful, all these Orthodox Christians could go about their daily lives and not worry too much about the big picture. This is also true of many Orthodox Churches and bishops. Most folks like beautiful rites (singing, golden cupolas, beautiful architecture and historical places) mixed in with a little good old superstition (place a candle before a business meeting or playing the lottery) – such is human nature and, alas, most Orthodox Christians are no different, even if their calling is to be “not of this world”. But now this apparently peaceful picture has been severely disrupted by the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople whose actions are in such blatant and severe violation of all the basic canons and traditions of the Church that they literally force each Orthodox Christian, especially bishops, to break their silence and take a position: am I with Moscow or with Constantinople?
Oh sure, initially many (most?) Orthodox Christians, including many bishops, will either try to look away or limit themselves to vapid expressions of “regret” mixed in with calls for “unity”. A good example of that kind of wishy washy lukewarm language can already be found here. But this kind of Pilate-like washing of hands (“ain’t my business” in modern parlance) is unsustainable, and here is why: in Orthodox ecclesiology you cannot build “broken Eucharistic triangles”. If A is not in communion with B, then C cannot be in communion with A and B at the same time. It’s really an “either or” binary choice. At least in theory (in reality, such “broken triangles” have existed, most recently between the former ROCA/ROCOR, the Serbian Church and the Moscow Patriarchate, but they are unsustainable, as events of the 2000-2007 years confirmed for the ROCA/ROCOR). Still, no doubt that some (many?) will try to remain in communion with both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Constantinople Patriarchate, but this will become harder and harder with every passing month. In some specific cases, such a decision will be truly dramatic, I think of the monasteries on the Holy Mountain in particular.
[Sidebar: on a more cynical level, I would note that the Patriarch of Constantinople has now opened a real Pandora’s box which now every separatist movement in an Orthodox country will be able to use to demand its own “autocephaly” which will threaten the unity of most Orthodox Churches out there. If all it takes to become “autocephalous” is to trigger some kind of nationalist uprising, then just imagine how many “Churches” will demand the same autocephaly as the Ukronazis are today! The fact that ethno-phyetism is a condemned heresy will clearly stop none of them. After all, if it is good enough for the “Ecumenical” Patriarch, it sure is good enough for any and all pseudo-Orthodox nationalists!]
What the AngloZionist Empire has done is to force each Orthodox Christian and each Orthodox Church to chose between siding with Moscow or Constantinople. This choice will have obvious spiritual consequences, which the Empire couldn’t give a damn about, but it will also profound political and social consequences which, I believe, the Empire entirely missed.
The Moscow Patriarchate vs the Patriarchate of Constantinople – a sociological and political analysis
Let me be clear here that I am not going to compare and contrast the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) and the Patriarchate of Constantinople (PC) from a spiritual, theological or even ecclesiological point of view here. Instead, I will compare and contrast them from a purely sociological and political point of view. The differences here are truly profound.
|Moscow Patriarchate||Patriarchate of Constantinople|
|Actual size||Very big||Small|
|Financial means||Very big||Small|
|Dependence on the support of the Empire and its various entities||Limited||Total|
|Relations with the Vatican||Limited, mostly due to very strongly anti-Papist sentiments in the people||Mutual support and de-facto alliance|
|Majority member’s outlook||Conservative||Modernist|
|Majority member’s level of support||Strong||Lukewarm|
|Majority member’s concern with Church rules/cannons/traditions||Medium and selective||Low|
|Internal dissent||Practically eliminated (ROCA)||Strong (Holy Mountain, Old Calendarists)|
From the above table you can immediately see that the sole comparative ‘advantage’ of the PC is that is has the full support of the AngloZionist Empire and the Vatican. On all the other measures of power, the MP vastly “out-guns” the PC.
Now, inside the Ukronazi occupied Ukraine, that support of the Empire and the Vatican (via their Uniats) does indeed give a huge advantage to the PC and its Ukronazi pseudo-Orthodox “Churches”. And while Poroshenko has promised that no violence will be used against the MP parishes in the Ukraine, we all remember that he was the one who promised to stop the war against the Donbass, so why even pay attention to what he has to say.
US diplomats and analysts might be ignorant enough to believe Poroshenko’s promises, but if that is the case then they are failing to realize that Poroshensko has very little control over the hardcore Nazi mobs like the one we saw last Sunday in Kiev. The reality is very different: Poroshenko’s relationship to the hardcore Nazis in the Ukraine is roughly similar to the one the House of Saud has with the various al-Qaeda affiliates in Saudi Arabia: they try to both appease and control them, but they end up failing every time. The political agenda in the Ukraine is set by bona fide Nazis, just as it is set in the KSA by the various al-Qaeda types. Poroshenko and MBS are just impotent dwarfs trying to ride on the shoulders of much more powerful devils.
Sadly, and as always, the ones most at risk right now are the simple faithful who will resist any attempts by the Ukronazi death-squads to seize their churches and expel their priests. I don’t expect a civil war to ensue, not in the usual sense of the world, but I do expect a lot of atrocities similar to what took place during the 2014 Odessa massacre when the Ukronazis burned people alive (and shot those trying to escape). Once these massacres begin, it will be very, very hard for the Empire to whitewash them or blame it all on “Russian interference”. But most crucially, as the (admittedly controversial) Christian writer Tertullian noticed as far back as the 2nd century “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church”. You can be sure that the massacre of innocent Christians in the Ukraine will result in a strengthening of the Orthodox awareness, not only inside the Ukraine, but also in the rest of the world, especially among those who are currently “on the fence” so to speak, between the kind of conservative Orthodoxy proclaimed by the MP and the kind of lukewarm wishy washy “decaf” pseudo-Orthodoxy embodied by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. After all, it is one thing to change the Church Calendar or give hugs and kisses to Popes and quite another to bless Nazi death-squads to persecute Orthodox Christians.
To summarize I would say that by his actions, the Patriarch of Constantinople is now forcing the entire Orthodox world to make a choice between two very different kind of “Orthodoxies”. As for the Empire, it is committing a major mistake by creating a situation which will further polarize strongly, an already volatile political situation in the Ukraine.
There is, at least potentially, one more possible consequence from these developments which is almost never discussed: its impact inside the Moscow Patriarchate.
Possible impact of these developments inside the Moscow Patriarchate
Without going into details, I will just say that the Moscow Patriarchate is a very diverse entity in which rather different “currents” coexist. In Russian politics I often speak of Atlantic Integrationists and Eurasian Sovereignists. There is something vaguely similar inside the MP, but I would use different terms. One camp is what I would call the “pro-Western Ecumenists” and the other camp the “anti-Western Conservatives”. Ever since Putin came to power the pro-Western Ecumenists have been losing their influence, mostly due to the fact that the majority of the regular rank and file members of the MP are firmly behind the anti-Western Conservative movement (bishops, priests, theologians). The rabid hatred and fear of everything Russian by the West combined with the total support for anything anti-Russian (including Takfiris and Nazis) has had it’s impact here too, and very few people in Russia want the civilizational model of Conchita Wurst, John McCain or Pope Francis to influence the future of Russia. The word “ecumenism” has, like the word “democracy”, become a four letter word in Russia with a meaning roughly similar to “sellout” or “prostitution”. What is interesting is that many bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate who, in the past, were torn between the conservative pressure from their own flock and their own “ecumenical” and “democratic” inclinations (best embodied by the Patriarch of Constantinople) have now made a choice for the conservative model (beginning by Patriarch Kirill himself who, in the past, used to be quite favorable to the so-called “ecumenical dialog of love” with the Latins).
Now that the MP and the PC have broken the ties which previously united them, they are both free to pursue their natural inclinations, so to speak. The PC can become some kind of “Eastern Rite Papacy” and bask in an unhindered love fest with the Empire and the Vatican while the MP will now have almost no incentive whatsoever to pay attention to future offers of rapprochement by the Empire or the Vatican (these two always work hand in hand). For Russia, this is a very good development.
Make no mistake, what the Empire did in the Ukraine constitutes yet another profoundly evil and tragic blow against the long-suffering people of the Ukraine. In its ugliness and tragic consequences, it is quite comparable to the occupation of these lands by the Papacy via its Polish and Lithuanian agents. But God has the ability to turn even the worst horror into something which, in the end, will strengthen His Church.
Russia in general, and the Moscow Patriarchate specifically, are very much in a transition phase on many levels and we cannot overestimate the impact which the West’s hostility on all fronts, including spiritual ones, will have on the future consciousness of the Russian and Orthodox people. The 1990s were years of total confusion and ignorance, not only for Russia by the way, but the first decade of the new millennium has turned out to be a most painful, but also most needed, eye-opener for those who had naively trusted the notion that the West’s enemy was only Communism, not Russia as a civilizational model.
In their infinite ignorance and stupidity, the leaders of the Empire have always acted only in the immediate short term and they never bothered to think about the mid to long term effects of their actions. This is as true for Russia as it is for Iraq or the Balkans. When things eventually, and inevitably, go very wrong, they will be sincerely baffled and wonder how and why it all went wrong. In the end, as always, they will blame the “other guy”.
There is no doubt in my mind that the latest maneuver of the AngloZionist Empire in the Ukraine will yield some kind of feel-good and short term “victory” (“peremoga” in Ukrainian) which will be followed by a humiliating defeat (“zrada” in Ukrainian) which will have profound consequences for many decades to come and which will deeply reshape the current Orthodox world. In theory, these kinds of operations are supposed to implement the ancient principle of “divide and rule”, but in the modern world what they really do is to further unite the Russian people against the Empire and, God willing, will unite the Orthodox people against pseudo-Orthodox bishops.
In this analysis I have had to describe a lot of, shall we say, “less than inspiring” realities about the Orthodox Church and I don’t want to give the impression that the Church of Christ is as clueless and impotent as all those denominations, which, over the centuries have fallen away from the Church. Yes, our times are difficult and tragic, but the Church has not lost her “salt”. So what I want to do in lieu of a personal conclusion is to quote one of the most enlightened and distinguished theologians of our time, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, who in his book “The Mind of the Orthodox Church” (which I consider one of the best books available in English about the Orthodox Church and a “must read” for anybody interested in Orthodox ecclesiology) wrote the following words:
Saint Maximos the Confessor says that, while Christians are divided into categories according to age and race, nationalities, languages, places and ways of life, studies and characteristics, and are “distinct from one another and vastly different, all being born into the Church and reborn and recreated through it in the Spirit” nevertheless “it bestows equally on all the gift of one divine form and designation, to be Christ’s and to bear His Name. And Saint Basil the Great, referring to the unity of the Church says characteristically: “The Church of Christ is one, even tough He is called upon from different places”. These passages, and especially the life of the Church, do away with every nationalistic tendency. It is not, of course, nations and homelands that are abolished, but nationalism, which is a heresy and a great danger to the Church of Christ.
Metropolitan Hierotheos is absolutely correct. Nationalism, which itself is a pure product of West European secularism, is one of the most dangerous threats facing the Church today. During the 20th century it has already cost the lives of millions of pious and faithful Christians (having said that, this in no way implies that the kind of suicidal multiculturalism advocated by the degenerate leaders of the AngloZionist Empire today is any better!). And this is hardly a “Ukrainian” problem (the Moscow Patriarchate is also deeply infected by the deadly virus of nationalism). Nationalism and ethno-phyletism are hardly worse than such heresies as Iconoclasm or Monophysitism/Monothelitism were in the past and those were eventually defeated. Like all heresies, nationalism will never prevail against the “Church of the living God” which is the “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and while many may lapse, others never will.
In the meantime, the next couple of months will be absolutely crucial. Right now it appears to me that the majority of the Orthodox Churches will first try to remain neutral but will have to eventually side with the Moscow Patriarchate and against the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew. Ironically, the situation inside the USA will most likely be particularly chaotic as the various Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA have divided loyalties and are often split along conservative vs modernizing lines. The other place to keep a close eye on will be the monasteries on the Holy Mountain were I expect a major crisis and confrontation to erupt.
With the crisis in the Ukraine the heresy of nationalism has reached a new level of infamy and there will most certainly be a very strong reaction to it. The Empire clearly has no idea what kind of dynamic it has now set in motion.
Quite a tour of the crisis and historical context, Saker. Very good presentation for us who know next to nothing of these matters.
There is a total war on Russia and this fits in with Hybrid Warfare. Anything goes to destroy the Russian civilization and society. Corrupting the religion is just part of that war.
It all creates a great sadness to see a devolution like this matter will produce.
But, maybe, as you conclude, something good will result in the end. The utter collapse of Kiev would be a nice result.
Larchmonter445 has a good point. This is an excellent presentation.
But it is not free from error. Far too many an Orthodox Christian not only endeavors to maintain traditions that go back a millennium, which is commendable, but mistakenly imputes that no innovation occurred in the millennium prior, which is simply historically inaccurate. To construe papacy to be an 11th century Frankish innovation is nonsense.
The term, religious cult, applied originally to the Cult of Mary. Like the aggregation of all who fish or all who ride bicycles, this aggregation of all who pray to the Theotokos has no organizational structure and needs none. Subsequently, however, the same term has been applied to what amount to new religions, which all have a typical structure, i.e., a charismatic leader and a number of obedient followers.
This monarchical religious structure—typical of a religious cult (other than the Cult of Mary)—is not atypical among religions but rather is the norm. Christianity actually is peculiar to have been ruled by a council of Twelve Apostles, who—because they believed they would rule the Church of the Millennium (according to Mt 19:28 and Lk 22:30)—elected no successor to their council beyond St. Matthias. Instead, they let the council dwindle away to nothing (with the unwanted assistance of Rome, which destroyed their nation in 70 A.D.—putting an end to their council and eventually to the succession of the Bishops of Jerusalem who led it).
According to Eusebius, Christianity originated from the Therapeuts, who were ascetic Jews similar to Essenes. They lived communally next to Lake Mareotis, near Alexandria. St. John the Baptist was their missionary in the Holy Land. The Mystery of the Incarnation is the one innovative belief to set Christians apart from Therapeuts, whom St. Mark readily converted to Christianity. The oldest attestation of the title, pope, is to the Bishop of Alexandria in the 3rd century, and it applied to the Bishop of Rome, as well, in the 3rd century. Besides being the seat of the Jewish sect from which Christianity sprang, Alexandria was one of the earliest Christian communities. It was also the world’s leading center of scholarship—Africans being the great scholars of the day, to whom all turned for academic advice.
In 325, when Emperor Constantine changed Christianity from a forbidden religion to the official one, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome were its leading cities. At the time the Empire consisted of over a hundred provinces organized into fifteen imperial dioceses. Since the Emperor moved the capital to Byzantium, and was not in any of these three cities, he delegated authority to the corresponding three diocesan governors. Since he did not want a governor’s authority to extend beyond a diocese, however, he had the bishops affiliated with the three cities who were outside the three dioceses, as well as all other independent Christian bishops, fall under the jurisdiction of the corresponding provincial governor. He also organized the bishops in these provinces much like a modern non-profit corporation with the bishops forming a board and a metropolitan bishop chairing the board. Finally, he recognized the authority of the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome—also called Archbishops or Patriarchs or Popes—over the entire Church in the corresponding imperial diocese.
Although these doings are officially the resolution of the First Council of Nicaea in 325, they are obviously for the benefit of the Emperor, who presided over it. Emperor Constantine gave the Church an offer it could not refuse, and no doubt the Council was willing to do just about anything short of heresy to please the Emperor—including organizing the Church for the convenience of the State. The Council also recognized the Bishop of Jerusalem (historically the head of the Church) as second in his province—a lower rank than the three patriarchs and the hundred and some odd metropolitans but a higher dignity than the other thousand and some odd bishops.
The First Council of Constantinople in 381 created the Patriarchate of Constantinople—in honor second to Rome. It also introduced the creed to which was added the controversial filioque. The Council of Ephesus in 431 deposed Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople, and excommunicated the Nestorians (the Radical Dyophysites—the Church of the East—mostly in the Persian Empire) as heretics. It also prohibited creeds other than the Nicene Creed, i.e., it prohibited both sides of the controversy over the filioque. The Council required expressing belief in the Holy Ghost without specifying from whence He proceeds.
Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria rejected the Council of Chalcedon (of 451) which led to the excommunication of the Miaphysites—the Coptic Orthodox Church. The Pope of Alexandria maintained that he had authority to veto a decision of the council, which indicates his view that he had papal authority—not merely a papal title. Consequently, papacy cannot be characterized as an 11th century Frankish innovation. It is of earlier African, and not Frankish, origin and it is the normal organizational form for a religion, although it differs from how the Apostles organized the biblical Church.
The pentarchy assigned ten dioceses to the Pope of Rome and three dioceses to the Patriarch of Constantinople, kept one for the Patriarch of Alexandria (who replaced the deposed Pope) and split the remaining diocese between the newly created Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Patriarch of Antioch. This pentarchy was short-lived, as the Western Empire (the Roman Papacy or Patriarchate) fell to Barbarians and the Alexandrian Papacy or Patriarchate, which is the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem fell to Muslims. The Patriarch of Constantinople thus became the leader of the Church throughout the Byzantine Empire.
By the 5th or 6th century in the Western Church, the title, pope, came to be restricted to the Bishop of Rome, but this was not formalized until 1073.
Neglecting the organizational forms of the Therapeuts and their predecessors, which do inform the organization of the Church, the Church in Christ’s day was indistinguishable from a religious cult (first Christian structure). Later in biblical times a council of the Twelve ruled it, but without replacement (second structure) so by the time St. John was the only one left, he was the sole leader under the title, Bishop of Jerusalem (third structure). The persecuted Church had a haphazard structure for the next few centuries with multiple leaders by necessity and not by choice (fourth structure). Emperor Constantine assigned three of these leaders to imperial dioceses and organized the other twelve dioceses into a hundred some odd metropolitanates each under a board chosen by cooption (fifth structure). This was reorganized as the pentarchy (sixth structure) which quickly turned into a sole patriarchate within the Byzantine Empire (seventh structure).
The Roman and Alexandrian papacies existed for centuries before the Great Schism. Papacy was not a subsequent Frankish innovation, and there are more innovations in the millennium before the Great Schism than you can point a stick at. Besides these innovations to structure, there are innovations to sacraments and vocational criteria. In biblical times, priests and priestesses were all abstinent, and episcopacy signified completion of theological training. Nowadays, the masculine priesthood signifies such completion, and among the Orthodox, only the episcopacy requires abstinence. For the laity, civil marriage was permissible and the norm for centuries, while sacramental marriage was limited to the clergy—and limited to one marriage not three. Originally, baptism and unction were in the nude. Churches were segregated between men and women. The first millennium saw many an innovation.
A millennium older than the Eastern Orthodox Communion, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria may be the closest to Christianity at its founding but still has enjoyed a number of innovations. For purposes of Mt 16:18, all Christian denominations are Petrine in origin (St. Mark being St. Peter’s disciple). Although some may construe Rev 17:9 and 18:4 to refer to the Western Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches also originate from the Emperor of Rome, but the Oriental Orthodox Churches do not. When Christ returns—maybe in a few centuries—He will fix any canonical problems with any creeds and episcopates, as well as resolve any theological disputes, which divide the denominations.
As an agnostic of Christian background, I hold no distinction between various groups of Christians; in my view every Christian is a part of the Body of Christ. The coming religious war has a purely political origin, so here is my two pennyworth of opinion how to prevent it.
1. The sooner Kiev returns to Russian sovereignty the better.
2. The sooner the Orthodox in the East of Western Europe (Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria) ally politically with Orthodox Russia the better.
If blood has to be spilt, better it be spilt for a practical political cause: strengthening some downtrodden little nations in the EU$A, and weakening the Anglo Zio Capitalist Empire of Mammon.
in my view every Christian is a part of the Body of Christ.
Same problem in the Islamic ummah. Are we Persian Muslims/Turkish Muslims/Arab Muslims/Kazakh Muslims/Urdu Muslims/Malay Muslims or just Muslims as One entity?
To accept the “One” means dilution of the “Many” or to accept the “Many” means the dilution of the “One”.
Man can never escape Dialectics or atleast strike a good balance between “one” and the “many” except by the wisdom and grace of God.
Sai Baba Sufi, what you say is very true. By the grace of God we find a balance. The trouble begins when wicked people disturb that balance for their own ends. To disturb a delicate social balance is easily done; then blood flows. And, as a very rich man said, the best time to make money is when streets are running with blood.
With strong belief in God rather in fallen humans and their institutions and philosophies, suffering and blood can be moulded into an unshakable life-spirit within you which makes life worth living and give meaning; than the vain pursuit of Bourgeoisie pleasures just for the sake of it which leads to boredom, addiction and materialism, commodification and status consciousness -which leads to loss of genuine connection between humans,
@To accept the “One” means dilution of the “Many” or to accept the “Many” means the dilution of the “One”.
The only solution to this ‘dialectical’ quandary is the Trinity. The ‘Wisdom of God’ is Jesus Christ “the Word made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth”.
As long as mankind remains in “beliefs”, there will always be separation and dissensions.
Spirit is not physical, universal consciousness is not physical or/and material. To use logic and the mind to define and explain what is not define-able remains of the “human race experience – ego/personality”.
The Trinity remains a belief… One can contemplate on its wisdom and get to a space of “spiritual enrapture” but it is only one of the ways.
The solution is to develop our “6th sense” that opens a “door” on the unexplained… the OM of the yogis.
Universal consciousness is closer to vibrations of ??? It is like the wind. We can learn of its effects but never grasp it.
Sorry to say but any organized religions will always remain one step away from true spirituality which is unique to every “being”. And in the future, we might discover that some animals are a lot more spiritual than we are.
Christianity is built on stories of experiences some humans had in time. To line up behind the “beliefs” of those folks is no better than what happened to Kavanaugh/Ford debacle. Who do you believe?
Of course, in human actions, there are possible proofs in time. In spirituality, there are no proofs and will never be “physical-scientific-materialistic proofs”.
Time to move on “beyond” religions. It probably will take a few more millenniums! Human beings need “frames of reference” to guide them in their ethics and morality… When Love is finally in the “heart” and guides a person, respect is inevitable and co-operation ensues.
Faith in the Trinity is not a ‘belief’ in a concept excogitated by our minds. Trinity was revealed at the Epiphany or Theophany (the Baptism of Jesus), when God appears to John the Baptist:
“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3-16-17).
The Trinity reveald itself to the Apostles at the Transfiguration:
“And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. 4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. 5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Matthew 17:1-5)
Where is Love today ? for, those who have love in their souls, suffering is always there. As people don’t like to suffer, they flee that “minefield”, growing a shield which becomes thicker and thicker with time, all around their souls, their hearts, emptying this way, or closing their own inner church. For some, finding an external church does have a positive effect but for many, it is futile. Love is the essence of all, without it, there is no life, no Real Life, just a living in an outside garden, far from that of Eden. Symbolically, without love, we cast ourselves out from that Garden, which is the source of Life. Though love cannot be proved with formulas or machines or with any human science, everybody knows there IS Love. And having that love, is having the greatest treasure ever. Everything shall pass but Love remains.
Thank you for your wonderful comment and wisdom.
Christianity is almost opposite to spirituality…it’s message is that God came here to us, into the material Creation. That’s why Orthodox churches have domes rather than steeples pointing up.
Most Protestant churches were heavily influenced, if not begun, by mystery societies to which their leaders belonged….few protestants know about the secret past of their own founders.
Most “religion” is about seeking God. Orthodox Christianity is completely about God seeking us and allowing ourselves to be found and belong to Him through His Son. The Catholic is the same, but there’s way too much ‘spirituality’ from New Age sneaking in.
As every Muslim knows, and as MalcolmX also discovered, this ‘question’ is answered every time during the Pilgrimage.
This HAS to be connected with the fact, that Greece is becoming an avantpost of NATO in the region, taking the place of rather uncontrollable Turkey. Explusion of Russian diplomats, and expanding NATO bases . The issues with Macedonia and Kosovo. There is a pattern.
Greece seems pivotal in this, although not mentioned specifically the The Saker.
Perhaps that if because the Greek Orthodox church (if there is such a thing) seems to be most visible manifestation of Orthodoxy in the USA. Most of the Orthodox churches I see are Greek Orthodox.
This is just an impression, though.There may be many more Orthodox out there.
You’re correct, Katherine. In the US the ethnically Greek Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of America is the largest and richest (formerly) Orthodox Church. Whether or not the simple parishioners realize it, they’re not Orthodox anymore. There are some good priests, not to mention Elder Ephraim’s monasteries, which we pray will separate themselves from GOA and join whichever jurisdiction will take them, maybe ROCOR.
The trouble with “joining” ROCOR is that it is in the throws of the ethnophyletism heresy right now and it is very difficult to find a ROCOR in America that speaks the prevailing language, English, let alone Greek. However when reaching out to the Hispanic population they do manage to find Spanish-speaking clergy. If one does find an English-speaking ROCOR, one is in constant threat of it switching to Russian, as my parish did.
Isidora, I’m sorry you had such a negative experience. I’ve never experienced anything like that in the ROCOR parishes I’ve visited, although every parish situation is different. If the priest chose to serve in Church Slavonic he must have had his reasons. In the first ROCOR liturgy I attended the only big pieces that were in Slavonic were Our Father and the Symbol of Faith, as I recall. By far the most ethnophyletist communities are “Greek.” Greek flags, serving in Greek although everyone there understands English just fine, generally confusing Greek culture with Christianity as if you have to be “Greek” to be Orthodox, etc etc. Depending on where you live there should be plenty of other options, although the most likely to serve in English and be accustomed to American converts is an Antiochian church. Most of the small, national Churches (Serbian, Bulgarian, etc) are usually tailored for groups of immigrants from those countries. Doesn’t mean they would be bad places to be, though. Many Antiochian parishes aren’t really all that Orthodox either. Depends a lot on your individual situation and the character of the priests in your city.
The liturgical language of ROCOR as well as of the ROC is not Russian, but the Church Slavonic, which is a ‘sacred language’ used not only by Russians, with a millenial tradition and a beauty of expression that is not matched by the best English translations, despite all the efforts made. It induces by itself a worshipful attitude beyond words. The beauty of ‘Russian’ chant is unsurpassable and one can understand why people ‘switch’ to it. It is not any ‘ethnophiletism’ in it. Rather the insistance on exclusive use of English is a sign of it. Nevertheless, ROCOR practices alternate use of languages during the same service. Learning the liturgical formulas in Slavonic requires a minimal effort. The trouble is the Protestant mental attitude with which English converts approach the Church.
The Cypriot and Greek economies were deliberately set up for destruction so the (((banksters))) could use financial leverage to force them to do things not in its long term interests. This includes the Israel-Cyprus-Greece-Europe energy link which would involve looting of Palestinian and Lebanese resources at its eastern end, and (probably) full or significant financial funding/subsidy from Cyprus/Greece.
There are two different ROCOR branches today. The ROCOR-MP under the Patriarch of Moscow and the ROCOR-A under Met. Agafangel. You might want to contrast and compare these options.
A question for Saker. You mentioned a Serbian Church and the Moscow Patriarchate broken triangle. Could you please elaborate on that?
Yes, sure. The ROCA/ROCOR was not in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, but was in Communion with the Serbian Orthodox Church, which itself was in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. This resulted in the Council of the ROCA/ROCOR writing a letter to Patriarch Pavle in 2000 to ask him to mediate between the ROCA/ROCOR and the MP, a process which eventually resulted in the union of (most of) the ROCA/ROCOR and the MP in 2007.
What are your views on this meeting?
“Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, had a private audience with Pope Francis on Friday……”
Is Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia trying to make their points very clear to the Pope and ensuring the Catholic Church stays out of the Orthodox Church’s private matters?
What impact do you think this meeting will have?
I don’t know, but my feeling is that the Russians told the Pope that any overt support for the PC will be seen as a hostile act. The Pope then probably said that “NO! NO! NO! NEVER!!” and then proceeded to tell his Uniat agents not to get caught and keep a low profile. After that, he told the local CIA station chief that, no worries, we will continue to work together. That is how they always conduct business.
Aaaaaah, i see. Thank you very much for this info. I didn’t know about it.
who cares… it is not important. If ukraine wants to be free, so what? Russia should not care about it, just manage their own affairs and forget it.
Russia is hurting itself by thinking it should see over the Kiev church, like a mafia boss… they should be glad to be free of it.
Too much has been made about this foolishness. Russia should see this as a good thing and move on. Forget Turkey, forget Ukraine… they are not necessary for religion and worship. Enough of this
The “relevance” of this potential schism is hard to assess by outsiders and those who know nothing about the details on the ground.
It might depend on how the ROCO views the fate of those in the Ukraine who are affected by this.
That is, whether it feels responsible for their fate.
It may turn out to be a big land and property grab.
It may have an ethnic cleansing aspect.
The ROCO churches in Ukraine surely possess many treasures, documents, and archives, invluidng even birth, marriage, and death records of the local people going back centuries.
So, quite apart from the theological aspects (specifically *not* the focus of this piece), there are many on-the-ground consequences of such provocations, as the Saker pointed out, such as maybe even Odessa-like outbursts and riots.
In regard to the comments on the Papacy, namely that the Pope cannot properly be regarded as the primate of the entire Christian church, I would like to point out that Martin Luther came to this conclusion 500 years ago. Hence the Protestant Reformation. According to Luther, every man under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is a priest.
Not according to Luther. According to the word of God.
For it is written…behold we are made priests and kings for ever in the order of Melchizedek…Revelation…the Bible.!
Was the reform about that?
I always thought it was about interest for the bankers being a sin.
As you know the reform allow those “Christians” to charge interest.
So, all this time it was about the Pope and I didn’t know that. Amazing
And you made a very good point about the Pope. That’s a new one.
I may change my mind…
So it is kind of funny (not the ha ha kind of funny) that ASAIK the only Christian religous group that eschews any kind of minister or priest is the Society of Friends (Quakers).
Christian Science, founded by Mary Baker Eddy in Boston U.S.A., also eschews any kind of minister or priest. Just FYI.
I was a Quaker. In 1967 the Easter service in Raleigh, NC consisted of a Muslim from the Middle East explaining for 2 hours how wicked Israel is. There was no mention of the name “Jesus” even once…only politics.
So I became a Catholic. Having no solid boundaries but a warm, fuzzy feeling in silence can lead into some very muddy weeds. Usually it also mean the strongest personality with the biggest mouth takes over.
The big take away here is that religion still even matters in this world. In the West, it does not. So the epic battle that is truly unfolding is the “secular vs the religious” which manifests as the “secular vs the barbaric” (in some circles).
It is not talked about in the West, but the great divide there between “liberal” and “conservative” is truly an exact parallel to “atheist” vs. “Christian”. It may be seen as a cultural, political, ideological or religious divide, but in the end it is an economic or “class” division.
The elite masters of nihilism (a.k.a. “Money is my God”) preach to the little people through their corporate owned media, their Hollywood “politics as entertainment” platform, and of course by government decree. The message? Nihilistic identity politics is the new religion, Traditional Western values (Christianity) are dead (white male privilege).
Seen through this lens, and in this context, I present the true danger to traditional Western culture and its Christian heritage, whatever the flavor …
As an Orthodox Christian myself, I have always wondered why the Orthodox church is individually labelled by nationality, that is, why the use of Russian Othodox, Serbian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox etc? In my view, this only divides and weakens the Orthodox faith. Why can’t it be like the Catholic church which is a single entity? Their church is strong in that anyone regardless of ethnicity, race or nationality can identify themselves as Catholic. Of course, anyone can become Russian or Ethiopian Orthodox too but imagine how many potential converts have resisted due to the national labeling of each Orthodox church. For example, wouldn’t it be more appealing to a Japanese attracted to our faith to join a single entity rather than one based on geography.
I believe all the problems faced now by the Orthodox faith can be solved just by referring to itself as the Orthodox church where anyone will be welcome with open arms whether they be ftom Europe, Asia, Aftica or the America’s. Such a move eould guarantee an explosion in the number of new converts from all over the world as Orthodox followers. Just as the home of the Catholic church is in the Vatican, the headquarters of the Orthodox church could be in Moscow or Istanbul or wherever deemed appropriate for its base. As a Macedonian Orthodox I personally would like to see its home by the shores of Lake Ohrid in Macedonia as Macedonia is credited with being the first place in Europe where the teachings of Christianity were first accepted. I certainly hope someone like the Saker can explain why the Orthodox chuřch follows this manner. In the end, we are all of the Orthodox faith.
Makedonia, power sharing by consensus of several church leaders is a superior form of governance than concentrating power in a single leader. Centralised power is inherently unstable. Think of Switzerland. No president. A council of 7 individuals. The Spaniards overcame the Inca empire with a handful of people because they captured the Inca where power was centralised. This decentralisation of power of the church does not affect the unity (as long as all the churches are in communion with each other). We are all Orthodox. As for your question about “national” labels, canonical territory is not the same thing as national territory.
Serbian girl, although you’ve made some very good and convincing points, your reasoning can then apply to each individual church too. Just as corruption and inefficient concentration of power can exist in a centralized church (just look at the Vatican) so too can it exist in individual churches – as it unfortunately does.
Unfortunately this decentralization of our Orthodox faith has created disunity and there are many examples. It is sad that the closest of peoples – the Macedonians and Serbs for example are only divided by the refusal of the Serbian Orthodox church to recognize the Macedonian Orthodox church. If we eliminate this labeling of the churches whether they be canonical or national and we all refer to our faith as just the Orthodox church like the Catholics do then these conflicts will disappear. It’s only logical.
Makedonia, in 1959, the Serbian orthodox church granted full autonomy to the Macedonian church. In 1967, the Macedonian church UNILATERALLY declared autocephaly and, not surprisingly, was rejected by every single Orthodox Church, including the Serbian one. Ours is an ancient religion, and as with all human organisations there are clearly defined rules and obligations that need to be respected in order to achieve certain goals….
Saker, Do not be surprised, and I suggest checking video prepared by ΕΟΕ ΕΡΕΥΝΗΤΙΚΟΣ ΟΡΓΑΝΙΣΜΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ (Investigative Organization of the Greeks)
At 10:21 minute Archbishop Serafeim blesses group of freemasons.
At 10:36 minute video claims that Bartholomaios (Bartholomew) is a freemason.
Check out 10:30 interesting isn’t it?
At 10:59 minute it shows his picture when he served in Turkish army.
Some people say, that things may improve after Bartholomew’s death, well I am not sure, as I believe that both Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches are totally under Freemason control.
you are correct in this instance…. and many more groups churches whatever …. unwittingly are under direct or indirect influence of free masonry.
That is why one must research their own beliefs deeply ….. Not take what the man or woman up front says ….
Debunking the many confusing religious dogma out there is challenging ….
I found this extremely helpful Prof Walter Veith (while a seven day Adventist now was a committed Roman catholic
Go view for your self and make up your own mind….. He debunks academically a whole range of institutions religious and other wise …
Fascinating deep stuff
I appreciate what you are saying, but I would like to say, and I hope here it’s not going to taken as some kind of Orthodox propaganda (well it is), this is also an answer to Kathrine, which said: “Greece seems pivotal …”.
My short answer is: “It is, as Greeks consider themselves the creators of Christianity”.
Now, my long answer is this, and I hope not to offend anyone here, but let me give you some history lesson:
In April 24, 1821 Αθανάσιος Διάκος: «Εγώ Γραικός γεννήθηκα, Γραικός θε να πεθάνω»
I translate: Athanassios Diakos said: “I was born Greek, I’ll die Greek”.
He said many beautiful things at that time, but in short this was his answer to the Turk who told him to convert to Islam or die. He answered as above, so the Turks put him to death on a spit. And this was his famous death and every Greek knows those words by heart.
Now, why I am I saying this and how does this relate to Orthodox Christianity?
Well: It says it all because being Greek meant and still means “Orthodox Christian” So, by saying Greek he meant Orthodox Christian, he happened to be also Deacon (hence Διάκος).
In 1922, number of Muslims who lived in Greece were exchanged for ~2mln Orthodox Pontic and other Greeks from Turkey. This exchange resulted in genocide of about 1mln Greeks.
This is at Russian Orthodox Site (english):
Actually, no offense to the site by Pontic Greeks reside all around Black Sea from before 3000BC (this is why their dialect is Doric (Sparta?) and people from Crete are the source of their settlements. Hence their customs, instruments and dances are the same. Contrary to popular belief Doric people happened to be the
oldest Greeks. Doros was the oldest son of his Pelasgic Father (He has a name, but I am not going to dwell on this).
Millions of Muslim Greeks stayed in Turkey, as they were not recognized as Greeks.
I hope this explains things to you? To be recognized as true Greek you must be Orthodox Christian. I know, nowadays not all are Orthodox, many are communists, but there is a but.
Interesting response but the site referenced conveys a much broader explanation ….. go listen …… and you will grasp the over view…
Its not about greeks orthodox or …….. or any man developed concepts … what ever.
Prof Veith s research goes back 100s of years ….. and he lectures on what was then to what is today…..
As I have implied its a fascinating trip and 30 lectures loaded …..
Again I get your point. Unfortunately, I do not think that any of the versions of Christianity escaped the subversion.
Our salvation is to go to Αγια Σοφϊα and immerse ourselves in those psalms:
See the comment someone posted:
I’m Muslim, I love this, I find it beautiful…, and I Respect Christian religion “Especially orthodox”
Greetings from Morocco
or this again from Agia Sophia:
Russians and Orthodox Christian Arabs have the same psalms
Reminds me that the Spanish language in Europe was called (and still is in South America) “Christiana” 95% of people in SA consider themselves Christian. They are much more flexible than other wealthier places. A Catholic may also go to a Bible study with evangelicals…same for the many Orthodox there. Universities will have Bible study groups on campus. (Jews, too…many in Mexico since WWII).
Does it bother anyone here how much discretionary money is influencing individual Christians? Some seem to have plenty to drive miles to Latin Mass or Orthodox liturgy. Orthodoxy asks for expensive funeral arrangements and not cremation. I think Jesus and Mary have better things to worry about than whether well off people get to their special church…they were not so well to do themselves.
Saker’s article is very informative and helpful, and I will add that I have been shocked to personally encounter Greek Orthodox who are in the masonry. These are people I have known personally for many years but had no idea about this affiliation. I thought it was perhaps a fluke, but see through Saker’s writings and others that it seems to be a widespread phenomenon. Given the picture Saker paints in the above article, his previous comments several times about the political (and possible crypto catholic) nature of Russian Patriarch Kirill, and this masonic infiltration, it seems we are indeed in dark times.
Anonius – Can you point me to an english translation of the video you mentioned? A transcript of the text written out on the video screen would also work, as it could then be copied and pasted into a translator. As it is, the video only seems to be accessible to those who read Greek.
As a new Orthodox Christian this is very important to me. This is about the unity or oneness of the Church under Christ the head, that we should love each other and hold the same doctrine and care for each other across national lines. There is a reason phyletism is viewed as heresy. It is to this heresy that Filaret has given himself to. One heresy will inevitably, like cancer spread to the entire body if not removed and other heresy will spring up in this sick body. The apostles antidote for this causing of divisions and heresy appears to me to be that after two warnings or efforts to heal the break is then to have nothing to do with them. This heresy working in Ukraine and supported by Constantinople will likely lead to persecution of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in Ukraine. This is a serious thing and we all need to be wise in who we support. Christ God has His own way and time of dealing with renegades. I’m thinking of Simon Magus, the baptized sorcerer of the first century. This creature ended up running off to Rome where he went from bad to worse, constantly opposing the Apostles of the Lord. Let’s just say, miraculously, it did not end well for him. As Saker has pointed out, there really is nothing new here. There have always been those who will divide and also the heretics. If it is that in God’s love and mercy and patience, he permits such division for a time to test us, at some point He will likely say this is enough and His Church will still stand because the gates of hell will not overpower it.
Amen brother! Very well said. Times are looking tough ahead, the fog is dense, but I see a LIGHT that is about to pierce through this fog.
Could you or anyone else please help me with tracking down a quote from some few years ago, I believe, by a senior EU politician (Schauble or Scholz or other) who started EU aim is to destroy Orthodoxy.
I am helping to resource a segment on a upcoming TV show and would really like to track this information down.
Peter, maybe this, carl bildt, former Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs? (via duckduckgo.com not google): http://www.monomakhos.com/eu-orthodoxy-is-the-enemy/
which refers to http://agora-dialogue.com/rex-carl-bildt-thinks-eastern-orthodoxy-is-main-threat-to-western-civilisation/ & which I couldn’t get to work, so went here for it: https://web.archive.org/web/20140511180849/http://agora-dialogue.com/rex-carl-bildt-thinks-eastern-orthodoxy-is-main-threat-to-western-civilisation/
Don’t know where the original source is.
By the way, the EU’s Eastern Partnership of expansion into the former occupied Soviet states was/is co-sponsored by Poland & Sweden (& the latter has a blue and yellow flag like ukraine).
Bless you Ralph. From this little seed of truth much can grow.
Kurt Volker pouring gasoline on the hot coals of the schism in Ukraine:
“Walker lied about the causes of the Church schism in Ukraine”
18 October 2018, 20:59
“The US special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker was accused of schism of the Ukrainian Church, Russian Orthodox Church, which, according to him, “blessed Russian tanks in the war with Ukraine”.
“The Russian Church blessed the tanks before the war with Ukraine, which distanced the Ukrainian people. I do not think that Russia fully understood the effect which it produced on the minds and psyche of Ukrainians. One important note, it was inconceivable five years ago. The only reason why the Ukrainians wanted their own Church – it is solely because of the occupation of the territory and killings of Ukrainians”, – said Walker during a speech at the Atlantic Council in Washington.
While Volcker did not bother that Ukraine has long existed a confrontation between the canonical Church and schismatic, writes RIA “Novosti”. Until recently, the dissenters didn’t want to admit none of the canonical churches.
The Moscow Patriarchate and, in particular, the UOC-MP has repeatedly emphasized its peacekeeping mission in the situation of the war in the Donbass. So, with the assistance of the Church freed the Ukrainian security forces from captivity militias without preconditions.
In 2014, Metropolitan Onufry directly called “stop the fraternal bloodshed.”
“In Kiev, our monks have become between the warring parties and stopped the slaughter”, he said.
In the Moscow Patriarchate said that “the appeal to moral authority of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, uniting Ukrainians on both sides of the conflict, is the real means of achieving national reconciliation in Ukraine”.
The UOC-MP has also held processions for the sake of reconciliation of the warring parties, which were massive, but extremely negatively met nationalist groups in Ukraine.
At the same time, the head of the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kiev Patriarchate” Filaret allowed himself bellicose statements: in particular, he expressed confidence in the “win” Ukraine to “war” with Russia.
On Monday, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church found it impossible to communicate with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Now believers of the Russian Orthodox Church will not be able to participate in baptisms, weddings and funerals in the churches of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Earlier, the Minister of foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov said that Bartholomew “picks provocations” in Ukraine with the direct support of Washington. In his opinion, Walker supports the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople.”
Larch, you are wrong here and I quote you:
“The US special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker was accused of schism of the Ukrainian Church, Russian Orthodox Church, which, according to him, “blessed Russian tanks in the war with Ukraine”.
I looked at the link that you submitted, and I quote: “Одно важное замечание, это было непостижимо пять лет назад.” you missed that one, which says and I translate: “One important notice, this was five years ago.”
Also, point here is: Volker is making things up (I do not want to use another word), as Russia never officially sent any tank units to Ukraine. As far as I know, all tanks used by Donbas were from Ukrainian warehouses. Now, I am aware that possibly many tank operators were “volunteers” as Russia never officially took part in the internal war of Ukraine.
So, my point is: “Priests did bless Donbas soldiers, who are/were believed to feel Russian”, and this is what Volker has problems with, as (here I am putting words in his mouth” he believes that they have no right to feel Russian. He opines that, in today’s Ukraine, anyone who feels Russian must be Russian agent.
I do not mean to change the subject (my apologies to the Saker”, but since we are on the subject of tanks and vz, I would like to point this article:
Which, talks about T-72 tank proudly displayed as “Trophy tank” during parade in Lvov (din’t Volker observe it?). The said tank was supposed to be one of the very early T-72 tanks which were rusting away for over twenty years in “Нижнем Тагиле – Lower Tagil?” Many od those tanks were “dusted off” by Donbas “Opoltchentsev”. Now, the article talks about many gadgets supposedly modified by the Russians on this tank. At the end the article, the reader is reminded that “Mr Chocolate – aka Poroshenko” demonstrated some Т-72АМТ in August. So, Volker was quite aware of that, while he was saying whatever he said about “Russian priests blessing Russian tanks before they went to kill their brethren in Ukraine”.
Your translation is the incorrect one, because you overlook the key word.
The word непостижимо is translated in my version. “Incomprehensible”.
So, I don’t know what your argument is.
But I rely on Yandex and iTranslate for translations.
Carry on . . .
Yes, you are correct as for the word, which I simply discarded. Why? My question is what did writer want to say, did he want to say that five years ago Ukrainians would not have done it? Or, is he suggesting that Russia would not have “invaded Ukraine” five years ago. He is not specific, and here is where our point of view are different. I do not mean any insult, but you are going word for word, which in my mind should not be done.
I simply decided that this was an unimportant to the issue. Why? Look at last section and I quote:
“Единственная причина, по которой украинцы захотели свою собственную церковь – это исключительно из-за оккупации территории и убийства украинцев», – заявил Волкер во время выступления в Атлантическом совете Вашингтона”. I translate, “The only cause, why Ukrainians wanted their independent Tserkov (Church) – it’s because of the “occupation of the territory” and killing of the Ukrainians – as Volker said at his speech at Washington’s Atlantic (Organization?). Whatever the name.
As you see it’s hard to figure out what the author is saying. I see double meaning.
BTW, my fancy Russian dictionary did not have “исключительно” so I just made something up. Also, why is he using “совете” since when US has communist organizations, so I made that one up as well.
So, to end all this tirade, Russia as usually is accused of all kinds of BS. While the bottom line is, as Saker says, and here are my words. The Freemason USofA is using it’s agent who pretends to be the head of Greek Church in conjunction with Catholic Pope to destroy our Orthodox Heritage.
Whatever volcker says is not to be believed, and everything he says needs independent, trusted, verification. Better still, do not listen to him, as he is the enemy. He is another one who gets others to do the fighting – and dying – for him.
Атлантическом совете Вашингтона is the Atlantic Council, one of the main NATO disinfo “academic” think tanks. A real nasty piece of work. You may not have found that in a dictionary because it’s an organization, in prepositional case too!
Andrew, thank you I should know now.
On the other hand, my apologies for drawing blank on “исключительно”, senior moment you see. Since my Polish is very good, I immediately knew it meant “wyłącznie” in Polish, but I drew blank on English. I just checked it out on Google translate, and it seemed to have played games with me as I played with those three languages back and forth. So Larch, you can’t really trust those computer translations.
Oh, I forgot to say the English word, which I believe is “exclusively”. So, Volker’s story would be in short “… exclusively because of killing the Ukrainians…”
Saker October 19, 2018
The last sentence in your posting about the present situation in the Christian Orthodox Church how it will and does presently assess the Papal instincts of the leader of the Constantinople part go this Church I question: “the Empire clearly has no idea what dynamic it has set in motion.”
The question I ask is how can you be sure that those who set this dynamic in motion have, had, no idea what they were doing? I assume they have had exact ideas of what they were setting in motion, hoping the side effects would last generations and more. Weakening Russian power in every single way it illustrates who it is is the point of this dynamic. Constant Nazi-copied propaganda for the next years until the Empire fails economically should be the plan. The years of surrounding the Russian landmass as well as burrowing into every Russian institution
as if members of them, the weakness and strengths of each carefully noted won’t be wasted information.
I would suggest after so many years of surrounding Russia (this same done to China) that as in Holland, the medical profession has been fully entered and is in process of deep changes. Another reason being the 1,000% of surveillance the US Empire demands globally.
If propaganda or threats do not remove dissent or intellectual examination of realities and poisons do not rid the Empire of meaningful dissenters, the interactive brain chip will in time set up large brain chipped populations easily erased in large amounts using drones. Corrupted medical institutions will easily eradicate the stubborn making sure the autopsies, if performed, are untrue, the archives will not hold the names and histories of these.
Their extended families will be carefully monitored and erased if needed for generations to make sure silences are kept.
The men and women of the Western intelligence agencies are carefully picked and trained, and are usually these days, psychopathic in nature. Not true in the beginning which caused great chaos when the original members met up with those born killers. My family had a member of the CIA not long after it began, J.Edgar Hoover as an old man had been ordered to open a top secret file on me the year I bore my first son. Our CIA member found out about this after which he discovered I and my two sons were to be assassinated so he came to warn me and my mother, his Aunt. I never understood the warning which my mother never clarified nor repeated.
My youngest son was slaughtered at his art college, SCAD in Savannah, GA, USA poisoned over three years with 12 heavy metals in a recipe used also on two other researchers into Alien flight. Everything he did was stolen, his records never sent as if he never existed. Nor his summa cum laude grades. No death records from the State even.
In line with the above, the US has been removing archived files would wide, removing facts of US horrors etc so theses will never be accessible as real histories….never taught. Done already to the Netherlands files, probably too Japanese files, archives.
My god! I am so sorry for your loss, the treasure of your soul. In fact, I am crying. My heart goes out to you.
The Lord Jesus comfort you with the closeness of your hearts…which are beyond harm.
I think that the Catholic world is not so monolithic specially after Ratzinger resignation. The new Vatican power group is fully pro Clinton/Soros, progressist, modernist and fully aligned with the global liberalist progressist ideology.
That said for the common Catholic believers things are different and a part of them are strongly against the current Vatican ideology and, for example, are pro Russia and see Russia like a sort of defender.
Ratzinger is a hostage of the Jesuits.
The Jesuits have a false and self serving prophecy of the popes. It has been imposed upon the papacy for several hundred years. Francis is the culmination of centuries of treason.
I agree, the current Pope is the final act of a perfect long time strategy for occupation and subversion from inside of the Catholic Church. But not all the common Catholic curchgoers and priests are with him and its command group. Between the Catholics there is a lot concern for what has happened and is happening in the Church.
Bravo! What a well-written, beautiful article despite the topic being so sad (schism! Heresy! likely much more bloodshed). First, I just want to say THANK YOU for taking the time to write this.
Second, I love the table in the middle of the article. For the time being, I am a VERY STRONG dissenter found within the ranks of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Just as I am a VERY STRONG dissenter found living within the Empire.
Third, to all my Orthodox Christian brothers and Sisters. DO NOT Despair!! things look bleak now, but we have much to be hopeful for. I strongly believe the cat is out of the bag, and I am VERY HOPEFUL that this is the beginning of the uprooting of the horrible heresies (Ecumenism, Modernism and Nationalism) that have taken root in the 21st century. Let us pray with all our strength that a real council is formed with every Bishop and Ecumenism is condemned, the Church is restructured and we return to the tradition of our God-bearing Fathers.
The time to ACT is NOW. We must cease commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch and all his followers. We must wall ourselves off from them, write letters to reprimand them and (worst-case, which I fear may be coming soon) LEAVE their “Church” and join a right-believing Bishop.
We CANNOT support the Ecumenical Patriarch (openly declared a heretic by the monks of Mount Athos) or the bishops that align with him. May God grant us the Grace, Wisdom and Strength to resist!
My love to all :-)
I agree the cat is out of the bag, as you say. At least we now have clarity on who is friend or foe.
Mount Athos is the canonical territory of the Constantinople Patriarchate. You are saying they have rebelled against Bartholomew’s decision? All I have seen in the news is that the Moscow Patriarch has forbidden pilgrimage to Mount Athos…
“It is often said that the issue of the filioque is “obscure” and largely irrelevant”
Western Oligarchs and their media shills always dismiss as obscure or arcane or irrelevent any facts or documents that get in their way.
Funny how if Jesus wanted a Pope to rule his Church on Earth after he was gone, he completely forgot to mention it while he was here. I don’t claim to be an expert on the Gospels, and my Sunday school years were spent in a Protestant church, but I think I’d remember a verse from the Gospels where Jesus said he wanted a Pope.
The justification the catholics use is Matthew 16:18 when Jesus said “you are the Rock on which I build my Church” to Peter. Which is not the same at all as having a Pope as a worldy King type figure, in a Palace with servants, land ownership, political machinery and so on.
Christianity is more than a religion, it is a relationship between God – Jesus – and man, meaning that only 2 parties are involved, just like marriage between a man and a woman, there are no others involved, it is direct and exclusive between the 2.
What the roman catholic church tries to do is include another, the pope, akin to a very bad mother-in-law interferring in a marriage, when she has no justification or authority to do so.
In other words proof texting.
Verses 18 and 19 should not be seen as a valorization of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical structure, but relate the simple fact that authority is granted to the apostles through Peter (the part standing for the whole). What then is authority, if not the capacity to discern and make judgement–above all else it is the capacity not to decide as when Pilate famously washed his hands. Note the proximity to the praise of Peter to the rebuke
A tentative analogy can be drawn from Matt 14:29-31 (NKJV) :
namely that humanly speaking the Church may falter, but all is not about what is humanly speaking.
As an example: San Francisco Western Addition was a black ghetto until the recently completed urban renewal removed it (save the 1% allowed to remain). The blacks came West to work the shipyards during the Pacific War, and were housed in the former homes of the interned Japanese. These plans for Manifest Destiny were likely long complete, the actual “act” of conquering the Pacific, and capturing the empire of the rising sun, seems in hindsight a fait accompli, one made all the easier by the legalized criminalization of all US-Japs. In that, Total War demands bold action, and therefore the enemy must die as a dog, and that the poor must be led so as to shed their own blood first in that fight, it stands to reason that if the Orthodox themselves can not yet be legally “put inside (the camp)” then the Ukraine papists must be locked-up themselves — in the fait accompli of a governmentally sanctioned, and false-church ratified, martyr-complex.
Basicaly this war is one part of the Anglo’s Divide and Rule stratergy they have used since 1700s to maintain their power. Ukranian religious people are being used as human shields and laboratory rats in the Anglo’s war against Russia, like Albanians, who also believe Anglo are on their side. NATO air force killed columns of Albanian refugees in the 1990s, and blamed it on Serbs militia. Ukranians are spat on as ‘immigrants stealing jobs and bringing crime’ when they live in USA and UK. Ukraina, Moldova, Macedonia and Albania and the others will never be allowed to join EU and gain prosperity- they were made to burn all their links to Russia in return for nothing but a load of loans.
The Anglo leaders dont care a damn about Ukranian culture, religion etc, they just use them as a weapon against Russia. If all Ukraine was a Greater Chernobyl, it would not in the slightest concern the imperial leadership.
This episode is one more hard evidence religion has nothing to do with the faith, but with power and wealth.
Only the willingly blind cannot see this at this point.
Magna Carta (Forest Charter) ~ 1215 ~ King William & Queen Mary agreed >surrounded by the Free People at sword point> to sign.
The Kings & Queens turned their Castles into Churches, did what those that separate from nature do ~~ brainwashed and mass murdered Free People. Soon the “Priests” of the Churches (King & Queen owned), collected money or whatever the FOREST (FREE) people had as payment and viola a new Ponzi Racketeering got birthed.
Fast forward to NUKES, TECHNOLOGY, and GLOBALIZATION.
The Russian Federation (Near East), Iranian ~ Syrian ~ Et Al Middle East, and Far East (China Et Al) are not going to allow the Barbaric West to continue raping, pillaging and plundering EARTH. The humans doing racketeering (“Royality of Europe”) and (“Big USA Gov”) are in a chaotic spiral conjuring whatever ~~ to keep the faux system their power over nature.
Nature is not unnatural. Nature as CHI (aka “energy”) creates and recreates and the outer we now experience cannot “trump” the inner majority of FREE thinkers.
“Be like water”. Thank you Saker for your incredible verve ~ the gene of altruism.
Saker, thank you for this article. One small but I think significant correction. The fourth Local Church to refuse to attend the robber council at Crete is Antioch, not OCA. The OCA wanted to go but was, ironically, refused by Bartholomew.
yes, I corrected that in the text
‘Nationalism, which itself is a pure product of West European secularism, is one of the most dangerous threats facing the Church today. During the 20th century it has already cost the lives of millions of pious and faithful Christians’ – wrong, Saker, evil caused their deaths, because satan hates Christians above all others, and is an indirect attack on God.
Christians are united in spirit, after all, Christianity is spiritual.
Nationalism is what gives countries/states their uniqueness, and is the opposite of the NWO of one Government, not many.
Having Poroshenko and Bartholomew in one sentence is bad, having Bartholomew meet Porky and actually support his fascist regime with clear intent to cause more bloodshed and split among Orthodox Christians
is a kind of dish perfected only bio zionazi scum. Good thing is, that poor soul under the name Bartholomew with his clique of cannibals is now cemented in history as nothing more than a pawn in the hands of his dark masters.
On your concluding comment about nationalism:
I fear that this split might also aggravate the quasi-fascistic elements in Russia towards a kind of neo-Josephitism, where Russia is supported no matter what to whatever end. I am not Orthodox (anti-papal, though I am Christian and adhere to episcopacy), and I hope God blesses the bishops of the patriarchate to make the right decisions, and hold the line against the ecumenical puppet, as well as not becoming mere tools of state.
what is that? If you are referring to the New Martyr Saint Joseph of Petrograd, then please explain to me how “Josephitism” is different from all the other examples of Christian martyrs in history? Isn’t Josephitism the very core of the Christian “witness” of the Truth of God? Is “Josephitism” not a perfect imitation of Christ’s spiritual feat (podvig) at the Golgotha?
I was referring to this division in the medieval Russian church: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Volotsky
There could be a return to this mode of thinking, but obviously in updated fashion. Florovsky writes about it in his “Ways of Russian Theology”
We did catch what you were referring to and the innuendo. Saint Joseph Volotsky was the harshest opponent of the heresy of the Judaizers (Zhidovstvuyushchiye) which infected the Russian Church at the beginning of the XVIth century.
Motto: For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world,and loses his own soul ?
Very good and exhaustive analysis.Hat off !
“The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church”.
“You can be sure that the massacre of innocent Christians in the Ukraine will result in a strengthening of the Orthodox awareness, not only inside the Ukraine, but also in the rest of the world, especially among those who are currently “on the fence” so to speak, between the kind of conservative Orthodoxy proclaimed by the MP and the kind of lukewarm wishy washy “decaf” pseudo-Orthodoxy embodied by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.”
Saint Laurent of Chernigov showed us the future on this matter:
” A godless authority will support these heretics, and therefore they will take churches away from the Orthodox and slaughter the faithful.
“Then the Metropolitan of Kiev (not worthy of the name) together with his like-minded hierarchs and priests will strongly shake the Russian Church. The whole world will be amazed at his lawlessness and will be frightened. He himself will go off into eternal perdition, like Judas.
“But all these slanders of the evil one and false teachings will disappear in Russia, and there will be One Orthodox Russian Church.”
If I take into consideration Putin’s warnings to Poroshenko ” Don’t be like Georgia’s Saakashvili, who lost vast territories ” :
with the last sentence of Saint Laurent:
“But all these slanders of the evil one and false teachings will disappear in Russia, and there will be One Orthodox Russian Church ”
..we get an intuition on how could it happen.
Earlier in an article on similar subject matter I wrote that the enemy would try to exploit religious,cultural differences between nations outside their imperial rule, to pit them against each other.At this point I’d add, they’d also attempt to pit religious and secular people against each other.And religious groups should guard against attempts to infiltrate their institutions and influential priests loved by the people should guard against assassination attempts.
The “Ecumenical Patriarchy” in Istanbul (no longer Constantinople, as far as they are concerned) is a nest of sleazeballs which must be quarantined without delay. The individuals that in the early 1920s seized control of and their successors who have since then been running that outfit are a blight on the Body of the Orthodox Church. Providentially, Orthodoxy follows a confederal rather than totalitarian model of organization, unlike the great pseudo-church of the West which before our eyes is re-submerging into the demonic septic tank whence it emerged a thousand years ago. That means that the healthy limbs of the Orthodox Body can carry on, strengthened by true doctrine, without that wayward see, if necessary. To all who speak Russian I recommend the incisive analysis of these matters by Professor Alexei Ilich Ossipov of the Moscow Theological Academy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3oVcp0Hosw
Here is one Priest who stands against all the Globalism and the Communists from Syriza and Anel:
The Greeks like me say to that “Μπράβο Σού Παπά”
Here is another priest you can die for:
And another blessed memory priest:
Dear Saker, do you have any intelligence that would tend to confirm or refute rumors that Patriarch Bartholomew was first blackmailed by US Secretary of State Pompeo over $10 million missing from the re-construction fund for the Greek church at Ground Zero in NYC and then bribed with a payment of up to $25 million?
I have seen these articles that show these numbers. Problem is they don’t add up. Since 2005, Mount Athos has received USD 200 M from Russia, (which is now going to stop) so a USD 25 M bribe from the US seems way too low…(it’s a liitle more than one a yearly contribution from Russia). Either Bartholomew sold himself cheap, or there is much more money in the bribe or something entirely different (threat of criminal charges, public disgrace)..who knows..
I don’t know, $200 million over 13 years works out to $15.4 million a year. A $25 — $40 million bribe in one year on top of money redirected from a building project (don’t forget the possible blackmail–Pompeo is rumored to have threatened to reveal what happened to the missing money)–too little? I’m not so sure. Plus the intangibles–get back at the Russian Church for not participating in your pet council, get in the Americans’ better graces by doing them a favor, so they’ll later do you a favor to help you maintain a shaky position in Turkey. But, I don’t know, and that is why I ask if there is anything to the rumors, or if they are just someone’s attempt at a smear.
Very instructive and illuminating article, thank you. On a matter not specific to this article, I have a point to make.
Persons genuinely religious, or with a general feel for humanity, recognise easily the disasters, massacres and abominable operations conducted by the AZ empire. Therefore they state, write or declare, and rightly so, that those operations, – Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Yugoslavia etc. – were ‘wrong’ or ended in ‘disasters’.
But from the point of view of the AZ empire they were anything but disasters – they were quintessential successes.
The USA were born as the product of an Illuministic revolutionary ideology, tempered by the restraints of the religious beliefs of most citizens. Beliefs officially ignored (see Jefferson’s separation of Church and State) but unofficially tolerated, and even encouraged. This prevented the revolution for independence from becoming or mirroring a French revolution, with its massacres and abominable atrocities.
But the revolutionary push and fervor that prompted the birth of the American nation never died, and has been dramatically reinforced by the gradual and overwhelming Jewish infiltration in all areas of culture and politics, especially foreign policy.
Jewish culture fosters destruction (Bolshevism, Trotzkyism, etc. docet). Therefore, Americans (as a nation) were born and raised in a given social order and in a given social system of values. And they (equally as a nation) believe that any other order must be unnatural, and that it could not last because it is incompatible with human nature – or, more accurately, given the Jewish infiltration – with Talmudic human nature. And the Talmudic penchant for destruction of the goy fits well with the original (and never abandoned) revolutionary ideology that gave birth to the nation.
Well, now from someone here with a Roman Catholic perspective –
Saker, as far as the conspiratorial perspective you have that the current “Papacy” is involved…
(And I put Papacy in quotation marks as there is considerable doubt as to whether or not Francis was ever validly elected Pope, or whether being a manifest heretic with concern to his attempts to change morality and Church discipline regarding it via Amoris Letitia and other directives that he ceases to be Pope, a whole other fascinating discussion… and let’s not even get started on his involvement in covering up the sexual abuse of his merry brand of close high ranking homosexual friends who put him in power for just such a reason…)
“Pope” Francis, like his other ecumenist modernist friends, most notably one Cardinal Kasper, (whom your friend Jimmie Moglia put up an article here about ‘The Cardinal’s Letter’ regarding Archbishop Vigano’s whistle blowing about Francis’ covering for the homosexual cabal that’s in power within the Catholic Church), are very big admirers of your Orthodox Church, the one where there is no Pope and everyone is an “equal” and also wish the same to be done unto the rest of the Roman Catholic Church.
I won’t get into the brouhaha about which one of us the Orthodox or the Romans is actually the ‘Christian World’ and which one decided to up and leave, nor the history of the ‘filioque’ inclusion in the Creed, or the circumstances that Rome was facing with a Macedonian error on its doorstep that was not affecting Constantinople, nor the whole historical context of numerous issues that led to the schism.
I will say that the idea of Francis himself or the Vatican being behind any of this wittingly is laughable, because Francis, being the grand ecumenist that he is care not one whit about the Papacy except where its power is concerned in those areas he arbitrarily wishes to take advantage of it, but given he is of the Argentine Peronist persuasion, one never knows when his yes means yes, nor his no means no. If one wishes to suggest that he may be persuaded by the AngloZionist empire to do certain things, then perhaps… he certainly has the backing of the mainstream newspapers and American Leftists rushing to defend him or shelter him from the Vigano expose. But the idea that he himself actually cares doesn’t match what we know about him. He himself infamously proclaimed that he may “go down in history as the one who split the Catholic Church” and also wants to diminish the Papacy and grant more “autocephaly” to local bishops synods and conferences so that in one country a more liberal bishops gathering can freely ignore discipline and have sins forgiven at will, while in another country just across the sea, a more ‘conservative’ bishop’s conference can hold fast to Tradition. And even with regards to his recent bending over for China, even atheist communists can become official bishops! The absurdity knows no bounds.
Francis is certainly of the devil, but one thing I can’t see him doing is going out of his way to embroil himself in the Orthodox affair between Moscow and Constantinople.
No Saker, that affair, rather than just being attributed to the conspiratorial machinations of the Vatican or the AngloZionists (And I’m not saying they not involved in some way), comes down to the fact that the Orthodox have no head.
This “everyone’s an equal” model is a recipe for disaster and naturally results in the nationalism or just plain “everybody gets to be Pope and head of their own new church” nonsense of the Protestant heretics.
The facts are that even in the Orthodox world, there are heads, and those are the Patriarchates who are still essentially all mini-Popes anyway.
After all the question logically follows – if there is no head or “First amongst Equals”, as the Roman Catholic Church declares through the primacy of Peter, then why the heck should the Ukranian Orthodox subject themselves to Moscow? Or even Constantinople for that matter? Why not be independent?
Because… “Nationalism”??? Because the grounds upon which they choose to be independent is not kosher? Who decides what is Orthodoxy and which case appeals to the Christian World and Tradition the best? Moscow? Constantinople? Who’s convening the Council to settle this affair? The Emperor? Putin? Erdogan?
It seems to me that regardless about the pretext or Ukranian Nationalism or whatever, the Orthodox is in schism with each other precisely because of the error of the schism between Rome and the East.
It’s an affair that is long complicated to get into here, but at the very least I will state that this is the first priority that must be solved. Otherwise what is occurring here is the natural outcome of all schismatic fruit, just as the splintering of the Protestant Heretics following after Luther who wanted to be his own Pope, but it never occurred to him that once he cast off Peter, then perhaps everybody else also had their own idea of who should succeed Peter and set up for themselves a 4th, 5th,6th,100th,3,000th Rome in every corner of the Earth, and the majority of these little Romes are all found in individual buildings in the American South. And many of them are subjects to the Israel-first doctrine. Because “The Bible” or something…
Moscow should not trust the current “Pope?” or Anti-Pope? of Rome any more than they can trust Poroshenko, Trump or Bibi… But Moscow cannot flee Rome forever, nor the wishes of the Virgin Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, nor that long-ignored demand God made of the disobedient Vicars of Christ to Consecrate Russia by the Pope of His Holy Catholic Church and ALL those Bishops in Union with him (the Pope).
At the rate Francis is going, schism is not just something that endangers the Orthodox sphere, but Francis is also testing God by attempting to create schism in Rome as well on matters of doctrine, one of which involves Adultery – something which Moscow is famous for accepting with regards to divorce and remarriage being valid, in express explicit opposition to the words of Jesus Christ, and for which Francis, and Cardinal Kasper are very keen to adopt but know they can’t just simply impose upon the Roman Catholic world (supposed power of the Pope or not, though we believe the Holy Spirit precisely protects the true Papal Office from committing such massive error), without having the Catholic Faithful recognizing him as a formal heretic and thus separating himself through obstinate heresy from the Body of Christ and thus ceasing to be Pope by virtue of ceasing to be Catholic.
These will be interesting times for both the East and West in the short years ahead.
If you claim that high authority for the roman church, can you turn water into wine?
According to John 14:12 that should only be a warm-up exercise. I gladly provide a big, cleaan bucket full of water for demonstration purposes. If the water stays as it is, is your belief non-existent or something wrong with the scripture or god’s ground personnel?
If you like, take another example, walk over water, levitate or resurrect somebody who is definetely dead.
If nothing of this kind works for you or another member of the roman church, the pope may just be a roman emperor in a different dress.
What would you expect the US to do? As Putin has called the US “…a godless country.” It will sink low to usurp what many people hold dear. A belief in a almighty.
Vladimir Putin is welcome to broaden his experience and sympathies of America into more than NYC, intellectuals, university arrogance, and television. Even Nikita Kruschev went to Disneyland.
Perhaps he could begin in Appalachian mountain churches tucked into the hills, then wend his way into the deep south. I will personally take him into the black churches here in Savannah and let the Christians tell him what Jesus Christ means to them.
While Orthodoxy is in turmoil, the Pope had struck a deal to enter China. As one of them predicted (Francisco Sisci), China would become a Roman Catholic country in a matter of decades if the Pope is allowed in. I have a few years ago in a posting in this block urged the Russian Orthodox Church to evangelise in China fast and take advantage of Russia’s good relations with China. It is still not too late.
With lutheran background I was not even aware that “filioque” exists and after reading your link about it I can not help but think that someone wanted to split Christianity. Back then and now again.
I can only make an argument from analogy here:
The reformation in Germany was supported by a Venetian cardinal Contarini who supported indirectly Luther and the anti-reformation via the Jesuits at the same time.
The religious split led later on to a war that completely devastated Germany with about 70% of the population killed during the war from 1618 until 1648.
Venice moved the empire later to Britain and then to USA. The methods dividing the enemy are still the same today.
Watch a speech of Bertrand Russel “The Golem Of Venice” or “Webster Tarpley on jesuit venetian dark operations” on youtube for further details.
There seems to be a spiritual aspect too, Venice/the anglos are materialists who deny the existence of a soul. Christianity opposes this view obviously. That seems to cause hatred in the anglos.
I have never been religious and I do not understand really why is this so significant.
But I follow this events.
First of all, I do not think that Vatican and Pope have nothing to do with this. I do not see what benefit would be for them in all this mess. Nothing.
Yes, the Empire has its hands in this as well as in all mess in the world.
But main problem is inside orthodox world because these churches are basically national churches.
And Empire just uses this problems for its political purpose.
But this problem inside orthodox world exist and it is not new. The most of orthodox nations want their churches to be independent and recognized.
I think that solution for this problem is that Russia should take all lands given to Ukraine by Lenin, called Novorussia. Novorussia should be one of Russia autonomy regions.
And in the rest of that what we now call Ukraine, without Novorussia, Russian Church should let Ukraine to has its own church and to recognize it.
If Ukrainians want it, let them have it.
Everything else is going to be trouble story without ending. Russia does not need it, and also Russian church.
“If the Ukrainians want it, let them have it.”
Well, it is really a matter for the Church herself to decide, not Ukrainians in general, not the politicians, not American diplomats; the actual Church is much less enthusiastic than the other groups. So, yes: if the Ukrainian Church truly wants autocephaly, and the Orthodox Church as a whole in conciliar fashion supports it, so be it. But that is not what has been done. What has been done sows naught but mischief.
Surely that danger is that Orthodox in The Donbass must look to Moscow and Catholics in Galicia will be aware that allegiance to Rome is somehow “treasonable” in modern Ukraine. The Schism will blow Ukraine apart as a unitary state.
Once France and Germany look to reconstruction in Syria to save their own societal structures from Islamic splintering there will be no money to rescue Ukraine from its folly. It is increasingly hard to envisage a Ukrainian state within its current borders and the destruction of unifying moorings into coherent political entities suggests Lebanon as the future
This conniving is predictably yukky.
Thanks for explaining the Filioque better. It opened the door to a very militant western Christianity…exclusive and cold hearted.
Just remember many Catholics would agree if they understood any of it. We don’t go to Mass for any Pope…we go for God. Maybe at the end of this crisis the churches will go back together. Modern Catholics are so hungry for holiness and some sweet dignity.
It appears that quite a lot of money changed hands to facilitate this —
The Zionists follow the Talmud, as against the real-Jews who follow the Torah, as set out by Moses. The Talmud has Babylonian connotations and crosses that realm which the normal human would consider esoteric satanism. The protocols of the Elders of Zion are based on the Talmud. I have not made a detailed study of the Talmud but am shocked by the material I have been researching time and again. The Zionists cosily fit into the definition of Satanism and instruments of Chaos creation.Their objective is not Orthodox or non-orthodox. They have the goal of smashing ALL of Christ’s church.They will appear anywhere an opportunity presents itself, Christian, Muslim , Jew or whoever, to sow the seeds of the devil . They are the servants of Lucifer . The going-on’s in Ukraine , where the religion of Christ once ruled the lives of the populous, is an obvious target for decimation. The Empire or Cabal is totally Zionist controlled and all it’s activities are Satanic , by definition. The chocolate baron they chose by revolution (imposed ), is a high ranking servant of the Zionists. Go to Brazil. You will see the same thing. The Zionist is the foremost enemy of the real-Jew