by Giorgi Nektarios Selimos for the Saker Blog
Please read my words & think about what has happened.
Normal people are not to blame here it is the sin of Greed & Lust for money & power that is responsible. If you truly believe in Christ nothing is lost. But after you read this you must decide what to do as you will know the Truth & God will not hold you blameless.
The Throne of the Pope is an interesting case as there is no evidence in the Bible or any Historical religious texts there was ever 1 single Bishop that should or did preside over all other churches in Christianity.
The Word Pope in the context as the Universal leader is never mentioned by any of the Apostles in the Bible or any Bishops from the 5 churches of the Apostles during the Time of Christ on the Earth.
The 1st Bishop of the church in Rome was Pius 1 (142-155) & he never mentioned the Word Pope or ever referred to being the Universal leader of Christians during his service to the Lord & the people of Rome.
For the 1st 1000 years after Christ the Church was essentially one body that had 5 Historical Patriarchal Centres in Strategic locations as advised to by Christ himself & the Mutual agreement of all of the 12 apostles.
As seen in the Bible the Apostles worked as a team with their churches & consulted each other on troubling issues from time to time & were always in full communion with each other.
This is not to say that there was no differences as is clearly exhibited in the Bible when Apostle Paul argues with Peter for not wanting to except ALL people into the Church as Christians. Paul argued with Peter that Jewish laws & customs should NOT be applied to non Jews in order for them to be accepted in the Church. Peter thought that EVERYONE HAD to follow Jewish Laws & customs to be accepted by Christ.
In the end the Apostles agreed with Paul & Peter accepted the decision & so Christianity was able to be spread to the whole world. This documented event in the Bible clearly shows that NO ONE Apostle was the Supreme leader, and that all Apostles worked together in their faith to spread the Words of Christ.
From the Original Christian churches in Jerusalem, Antioch(Syria), Rome(Italy), Alexandria(Egypt), & Constantinople(Greece) the Apostles Spread the word of God. But were persecuted & tortured & murdered by Romans & non Believers .
In 306 Constantine the Roman Emperor had fought his way to power in Rome & had managed to become Emperor for all the Roman Empire. Early on his reign Constantine was a beneficiary of a miracle of Christ
( Battle of the Milvian Bridge) & became a firm believer in Christ & Christ’s teachings & ended the persecution of all Christians.
In Honour of his new found faith in Christ, Constantine decided to built a new Capital for the Roman Empire in the Eastern predominately Christian Greek area of the Roman Empire. He would name this new spectacular city Constantinople & build the Worlds Grandest Church there ” The Church of the Apostles” or “Ayia Sophia’ it was laden with Gold, Marble, jewels, & the finest materials in all mankind it was spectacular in appearance & magnificent in stature. The Russian Royal Delegation would later describe it to Prince Vladimir of Russia as: “When we entered this place of worship we did not know if we were in Heaven or on Earth”
Emperor Constantine would seek to Unite his empire in Christian faith under this Orthodox Church.
In fact Constantine was incredibly successful & Christianity flourished under his rule.
In 325 Constantine established the Council of Nicea , where all Religious matters of the 5 original Apostolic Churches were to be worked out together . Emperor Constantine set up a system where all the Bishops of each church would work together under the Orthodox Church & have full communion with each other.
It was a good democratic system where no one Bishop or Politician could rule alone & where the Emperor would still retain authority of the whole Roman Empire.
Constantine wisely understood that in order for the Roman Empire to remain Strong he needed to keep the Church strong unlike politics this was the one way he could unite the citizens of the Empire in a good manner. To be certain, differences did occur in some religious matters from time to time but ultimately were resolved or not allowed to interfere with the continuation of the Church. Such was a dispute with the Nicene creed, the Roman church Bishop had disagreed with the Orthodox church Bishops of the East on this. The Roman Bishop refused to agree with any of the other Bishops on this issue. So they just defered the matter & nothing was officially changed until the Great Schism of the Roman church.
During his reign, Emperor Constantine built St Peters Basilica in Rome directly over the Apostle Peter’s Tomb. This was done so as to greatly honour the Apostle Peter who had spent much of his time Preaching in Rome .
It took 30 years to build starting in 326. It was a grand Church but not close in stature to the Headquarters Church Constantine had built in the Eastern part of the empire in his new capital of Constantinople.
After Emperor Constantine’s death his successor’s would succumb to political pressure from the Rich & Old Guard Romans who wanted to shift government power back to Rome.
The Political Elite had seen how Constantine had managed to gain peace, great power & riches through the Unification of the empire under one church & most certainly were thinking of a way that they too could emulate his success. But they did not want to operate from this new Roman Empire Capital of Constantinople.
They were desperate to find a way to make Rome the power centre once again. The Great Orthodox Church that Constantine had built & united his empire in Christianity with, was caught in the middle of this political struggle with Western Roman elites & a lot of power & money was at stake. Not to mention many Roman politicians still found it difficult not worshipping the Old Roman Idols from previous Emperors & retaining the mentality of worshiping any Idol they believed would make them rich & powerful.
They were not too concerned about true salvation, much like many of today’s politicians who clearly pretend to be whatever they need to be in order to get elected. They were more interested in Power & money & sex. At the same time the Church in Rome also got caught up in this political power struggle.
Between religious disagreement with the four original eastern orthodox churches & the political pressure to undo Constantinople as the Roman capital, The Roman Church & Bishops were greatly effected & started to break away from the other 4 remaining Patriarchs of the Original church.
During this time the Roman Church bishops suddenly & mysteriously produced
“The Donation of Constantine Decree” a brilliantly forged Imperial Decree in which the now dead Emperor Constantine transfers authority over Rome & all the Western part of the Empire to the Pope .
In this fake decree Constantine purportedly agreed his throne would only retain Imperial Authority in the Eastern part of the Roman empire & rule only from his new imperial capital of Constantinople & was also agreed the Pope of the Roman Church could have control of the rest of the Empire.
The Forged Imperial Decree claimed it was a gift to Pope Sylvester 1 for teaching Emperor Constantine about Christianity , baptizing him, & curing him of Leprosy.
This Forged Decree continued to be of great use to the Roman Church & was used by successive Popes to solidify power acquire more territory & gain more converts.
This document was also used in the Roman Empire as a Propaganda tool for the Roman Church to claim Universal Supremacy over the remaining 4 unified apostolic orthodox churches.
The 1st Pope who had the audacity to use this Forged document in an official act against all the other churches was Pope Leo IX who in an officially recorded letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 declared to the remaining 4 Churches of the Apostles that Indeed it was the Roman Church who clearly had Universal Supremacy over all Christians as was the proof under the seal of the Emperor Constantine as well as under a loosely translated reference (Matthew:16:18 ) made in the Bible. The Roman Church then demanded that everyone bow down to them & except this for fact.
When the Orthodox Patriarchs refused, the Roman Pope split away & officially created the Roman Catholic Church independent of the Orthodox churches, thus creating new religious decrees such as celibacy for clergy, no divorce, & the new revelation that the Pope was the infallible Vicar of Christ as well as numerous other new rules that were never part of the original church.
This was the year 1054 & the Roman Church had now officially split with the remaining 4 Original Apostolic Orthodox churches.
It was to be known as the great Schism.
The Roman Church was now officially alone & the 1st church in History of Christianity to split from the remaining Apostolic Orthodox churches.
It was now the 4 Original Orthodox Patriarchal Churches remaining as one, just as they still remain almost 1,000 years later today. The 4 remaining church’s managed to come to an agreement together & agreed not to bow down to the self proclaimed Universal Supremacy of the Roman Pope & all his new rules. It was only due to Christ’s miraculous enlightenment that the Orthodox Bishops did not believe the lies of the Pope & his forged decree.
The Original Apostolic Churches were not lost.
Eventually Pope Pius in 1453 admitted that the decree was a forgery & just as it had suddenly appeared, it was suddenly never seen again & nor ever mentioned or used again by the Roman Church & Pope.
By this time though the Muslim Armies of the East had gained horrific strength & were ravaging the Eastern Parts of the Roman Empire. This area was precisely where the majority of Christians still lived & was the heart of the remaining Apostolic Orthodox Churches.
In 1421 the Officials in Constantinople sent word to the Rome that they needed more help from the Roman Soldiers stationed in the West as the Muslims were barbarically slaughtering people & forcing them to refute Christianity & convert to Islam under the sharp blades of Muslim swords.
Constantinople was clearly still part of the Roman Empire but over the years had developed strained relations with the Roman Government & the Roman Church. The Orthodox Church in Constantinople had become a sore spot for many Roman political & Church leaders. The request for military assistance reached Rome but It was decided by the Roman Government & Pope not to send help to the East & let the current army reserves there try & fend for themselves.
The Emperor & the Pope sensing political opportunity to be finally rid of Constantinople & have Rome return to its rightful position of glory decided to fortify the Western empire & protect it at all costs , the Muslims were never able to get through to Rome & the Popes Roman Church was unscathed.
In Constantinople & the Eastern part of the Empire this resulted in the Unholy Slaughter & Barbaric killings of Bishops, Priests & Christian men of all ages, Women were raped & brutally murdered, children taken into slavery & Christian Churches destroyed or turned into Muslim Mosques including the Grand Church Constantine had built “the Ayia Sophia” which now has once again has been converted from museum to a mosque in 2020 .
The previous Pope John Paul was the 1st & only Pope to acknowledge this great sin against humanity & ask forgiveness from the Orthodox believers in Christ for what the Roman Church did to their ancestors.
This Mass slaughter of the Eastern Roman Empire had now resulted in the Roman Church being the only functioning church left in the Empire. With the Muslims effectively killing all Orthodox Bishops & priests & not allowing any remaining survivors freedom of religion the Roman Catholic church was poised to become the #1 Church in the world.
From this point on the Roman Catholic church did not look back & eventually embarked on the infamous Catholic Crusades & Witch Burnings. The Pope was finally free to spread the Roman brand of religion to the world unopposed.
Catholicism became the #1 Church & religion in the World & The Pope’s Dream of undisputed power in all matters was now realized, all thanks to the mass slaughter of the Orthodox Christians by the Muslims.
It was the Russians & Ukrainians during this bleak time for the Orthodox church that were able to keep the 4 Original Apostolic Churches memory & Traditions alive & in fact rebuild many exact replicas of these great churches in their countries including the Ayia Sophia which was rebuilt in Kiev, Ukraine & still stands to this day as an Orthodox church.
The Muslims were never successful in Conquering Russia & the Orthodox Church flourished in Russia. Attaining still to this day the highest number of churches per capita in the world. Even during the times of communism this fact did not change.
That is how strong the Orthodox faith was & is today. The Orthodox Church of Constantinople where Constantine had ended Christian persecutions & started the flourishing of the Christianity movement was gone…..
But the faith remained.
The Roman Church had now decided it was time to make St Peters Basilica the New centre of Christianity. Pope Julius II embarked on a grand reconstruction plan. Pope Julius II began by destroying Constantine’s original Church of St Peter & rebuilding one on top of the original Vatican grave yard .
Pope Julius also had All the original Orthodox Crosses from St Peter’s Church removed & replaced with new Latin crosses. The Pope then gloriously installed the famous Heliopolis Obelisk courtesy of the evil & debaucherous Roman Emperor Caligula.
This became a Grand church and was thereafter widely publicized as the Greatest Church on earth & the new centre of Christianity.
Later on in the mid 1930’s the Dictator & Ally of Adolf Hitler, Mussolini would add a Grand Monumental Avenue leading to the Piazza. Only the Pope is allowed to celebrate Catholic Mass on this Alter & no one else.
I want to make it absolutely clear that the Roman Catholic believers are not at fault for this lust for power & money in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Most Catholic believers don’t know any of this.
The Roman Catholic worshipers clearly believe in Christ, but unfortunately have been deceived by there church leaders & Roman politicians over the centuries. All in a lustful quest for power & money.
I believe that it is possible some Popes wanted to stop, but the deceit had gone too far & rather than expose it & risk dangerous consequences they probably asked Christ for forgiveness & just carried on the lies.
Other Popes mysteriously died or were removed .
I truly do admire the previous Pope John Paul for his courage to acknowledge the great Schism & ask for forgiveness. I think he was a good man & the only Pope who came close to reconciling with the Original Church. But Tragically by the time he had gotten to this point he died.
I am worried that many Catholics are starting to lose their faith in Christ because of all the repeated sexual scandals & of their clergy & the court ordered payouts forcing many churches into bankruptcy as well as many of the negative movies being made about their church.
The Catholic believers must understand that this has nothing to do with Christ & it is all the doings of their Leaders.
I want them to know that they were once part of the Orthodox Church & they should consider coming back rather than giving up.
So be it!
It’s what I earnestly pray for, the return of the West to what they once were.
Vladimir from your mouth to God’s ear.
God Bless you,
I agree with all my heart.
The truth is undeniable they only have to see it for themselves.
God Help us all.
Giorgi Nektarios Selimos
It is interesting that the Christian Orthodox view of religious authority is similar to Putin’s view of political authority namely, a multi-polar world.
This multi-polar concept is specially interesting to someone like myself, who grew up in a broadly Christian tradition (with an Orthodox father, a Protestant mother, a Jewish wife and a Roman friend) but who has now become a Believing Agnostic (pardon the term). I test everything rationally and empirically, but ultimately I believe that “our Father’s house has many mansions” and “there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your Philosophy”.
The ultimate criteria of the Christian world view are “Faith, Hope and Charity — and the greatest of these is Charity”. These criteria entered the Muslim world through the Church in Constantinople. They are probably the only basis for building a multipolar political world.
PS “via the Church in Constantinople” — and in Antioch, Syria.
May I add another criterion to your worthy list Dr? ‘Justice’, a notion that in it’s widest sense engenders mutual respect among people and gives each person his or her due.
“Justice” for sure. Justice was the original concept of Greek Philo-Sofia, a wedding of Natural Law with Moral Law. Christianity added the concept, “Justice with Mercy — but did not abrogate Justice”. Hell is part of the Wrath of God and the Justice of God.
The ultimate criteria of the Christian [Orthodox, that goes without saying] worldview were summarized by John the Theologian;
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word was 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… And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ”.
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world”.
“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him… Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever… Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life”.
This is our Faith, that’s what we Hope for and keep His commandment: “These things I command you, that ye love one another (ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους)’.
We hope for eternal life, not for the world, be it ‘multi-polar’ or whatever, nor for the reign of ‘justice’ in this world (the mislead hope of the Jews). It is not for that that the Son of God “came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father”. It is not for that that “from thence He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end”.
“I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee”.
An expository history of the Christian Church since the first Apostles of Christ for truth seekers:
1. There is no compulsion in religion.
2. Islam opposes oppression.
The author says, Muslims killed Christians, which is true. But he didn’t mention what type of Muslims. These Muslims were Ottoman Muslims, same as Turkey now. See what they do. These people are Muslims in name only. They do things in the name of Islam which are really imperialism. It’s a war-mongering caliphate.
It’s a blessing that the Muslim Caliphate is gone and the Muslims have been broken into bits and pieces. As it should be, because Muslims, in general, have abandoned the true teachings of the Koran and what Muhammad saw brought. The last caliphate was not a shining example of what a caliphate should be.
You can drink alcohol in public in Turkey. Hijab is not compulsory. And prostitution is legal.
You are right about Muslims today.
The Caliphate was corrupt from the very beginning, seeing as how they usurped Mohamad’s kingdom.
Generally speaking, the actions of Muslims after the death of Mohamad do not represent Islam at all, in my opinion. They represent greed, lust, envy, etc.
Islam was a brief moment in time while Mohamad lived, just as Christianity was a brief moment before Jesus was betrayed.
If we are to judge Islam and Christianity by the actions of their adherents, then both get a failing grade in my opinion.
Many people are being oppressed in the world today. Much injustice is being perpetrated on innocent people. Where are the Muslims and Christians?
The Jews have turned the temple into a money lender’s den again. Where are the followers of Jesus?
”The Caliphate was corrupt from the very beginning, seeing as how they usurped Mohamad’s kingdom.”
You sound like a shia….no islam was not corrupt from the begining..it was corrupt during the ottomans.
Please explain the Caliph Yazid murdering the prophet’s grandson, Hosein, in the cowardly manner which he did.
Yazid was an alcoholic and a sex addict.
He wasn’t the only one, they were all like that more or less.
“Shall take Jamshyd and Kaikiobad away” — Omar Khayam (The Tentmaker — like Paulus!)on one of his best rubiats (four-line verses).
You say, each day a thousand roses brings
Yes, but where is the Rose of Yesterday?
And the Summer month that first brings forth the Rose
Shall also take Jamshyd and Kaikobad away
Think, in this batter’d Caravanserai
Whose Doorways are alternate Night and Day,
How Sultan after Sultan with his Pomp
Abode his Hour or two, and went his way.
Alike for those who for today prepare,
And those that after a tomorrow stare,
A Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness cries
“Fools! your Reward is neither Here nor There.
Alas facts contradict your statements. When Arab Muslims attacked Spain, they butchered 470.000 Spaniards, after which they moved into France, only to be defeated by Charles Martel at the Battle of Poitiers. The slaughter of Christians by Ottoman Turks is well documented.
You state that in Islam there is no compulsion in religion. However, the word Islam means compulsion to convert, as Islam does not recognize any other religion on an equal basis, only temporary parity (what has ISIS been doing in Syria and Iraq ?). How many Orthodox Churches were converted into mosques in Eastern Europe ? Ayia Sophia is a perfect example. When this Orthodox church was again converted into a mosque, the reaction of Western Europe was almost non existent, the well known political and “human rights” institutions preferring to attack Russia and Putin over the Navalny false flag attack. Catholic and Protestant Western Europe was never fond of Orthodox Eastern Europe.
Finally, the author made a slight mistake in the article, when he stated “It was the Russians & Ukrainians during this bleak time for the Orthodox church that were able to keep the 4 Original Apostolic Churches memory & Traditions alive & in fact rebuild many exact replicas of these great churches in their countries including the Ayia Sophia which was rebuilt in Kiev, Ukraine & still stands to this day as an Orthodox church”.
Ukrainians had nothing to do with this, as back then they did not exist as an ethnic group, nor in reality do they exist today. Ukraine was the frontier region of Russia. It’s name is derived from the Slavic word “krayina”, which means “frontier region”. From “krayina” the word “Ukrayina” was derived, and from “Ukrayina” you now whave the name of Ukraine, an “independent” country created by the communists after World war One. The original Russian state was created in Kiev, which Western historians falsely call Kievian Rus, or Kievian Russia, which is a fabrication. When this state was centered in Kiev, it was quite simply called Rus or Russia. This means it was Russia as such which accepted Orthodox values.
Islam means surrender to God. A Muslim is supposed to be one who has surrendered to God. Islam and Muslim are from the same root as taslim, to surrender; sin lam mim, to make peace, from which is derived salam, hello, literally peace.
But I’m afraid I have to agree with you about Islamic aggression and forced compulsion. The Arab invasion is one of the four great calamities that befell Iran, the others being Alexander, Genghis, and Tamerlane.
I have not heard it said that the Arabs showed any restraint in killing Iranians, who were already monotheists, and culturally far superior to the desert Arab. The Arabs did not leave a single book unburned in Iran, without exaggeration.
The reason Arabs massacred Iranians and burned books and destroyed cultural relics is simple. As long as Iranian culture existed, Arab culture and Islam seemed ludicrous, preposterous in comparison.
The Arabs who invaded Iran did not show any inkling of understanding about God or religious thought, in my opinion. They just came here to kill, rape and steal as sport, while pretending they were doing it for God.
A further clarification: what is known as “Islamic civilization,” which gave rise to the Golden Age of Islam with all the advancements in science, medicine, philosophy, architecture, arts, and other fields, was due to the Persianization of Islam that began during the Umayyad phase (in spite of their hatred for all things Persian and refusal to allow most Persians to convert, they needed Persian culture to civilize the Arabs in order to build their empire) and went into overdrive during the Abbasid Caliphate, which was a true Persianate civilization.
All significant and culturally advanced Muslim civilizations were, in fact, Persianate cultures, including the Ottomans and other Turkic empires such as the Mughals. Without the Persian influence, the Arab and Turkic hordes would never have been able to civilize themselves sufficiently enough to sustain their empires.
One could argue this is why they harbor such genocidal hatred for Iran and Persians, but they cannot escape the historical record.
To quote Julius Evola:
“… it must first be understood that the Islamic tradition, rather than having such a unique metaphysical point of origin, is essentially dependent upon its inheritance of the Persian tradition – Persia, as is well known, having possessed one of the highest pre-European civilizations. The original Mazdaist conception of religion, as military service under the sign of the ‘God of Light’, and of existence as a continuous, relentless struggle to rescue beings and things from the control of an anti-god, is at the centre of the Persian vision of life, and should be considered as the metaphysical counterpart and spiritual background to the warrior enterprises which culminated in the creation by the Persians of the empire of the ‘kings of kings’. After the fall of Persia’s power, echoes of such traditions persisted in the cycle of medieval Arabian civilization in forms which became slightly more materialistic and sometimes exaggerated, yet not to such an extent that their original elements of spirituality were entirely lost.”
“… it must first be understood that the Islamic tradition, rather than having such a unique metaphysical point of origin, is essentially dependent upon its inheritance of the Persian tradition – Persia, as is well known, having possessed one of the highest pre-European civilizations. The original Mazdaist conception of religion, as military service under the sign of the ‘God of Light’, and of existence as a continuous, relentless struggle to rescue beings and things from the control of an anti-god, is at the centre of the Persian vision of life, and should be considered as the metaphysical counterpart and spiritual background to the warrior enterprises which culminated in the creation by the Persians of the empire of the ‘kings of kings’. After the fall of Persia’s power, echoes of such traditions persisted in the cycle of medieval Arabian civilization in forms which became slightly more materialistic and sometimes exaggerated, yet not to such an extent that their original elements of spirituality were entirely lost.”
I must add to this that the idea of the battle between good and evil, between a God of Light and a demon of darkness was first conceptualized by Zarathushtra. All the basic premises of Christianity and Islam are derived from Zoroastrian doctrine; heaven, hell, angels, demons, the coming of a savior, the apocalypse, all are original Zoroastrian thoughts.
The ancient Aryan armies of warriors of light were a truly a sight to behold, and none could withstand them and none were their equal. When they were aligned in battle formation, it is said that their spears were like a forest, and when the sun caught their helmets and armor, none could stand the dazzling sight.
Tales of their great battles and victories abound in the Avesta, the holy book of the Zoroastrian Aryans, and the Shahnameh, the Book of Kings, a book of 50,000 rhyming couplets by Ferdowsi.
Their greatest victory was against the dark lord, Azhi Dahaka, the serpent king, the right hand of the great enemy, Ahriman, whose throne was at the site of modern Jerusalem according to some accounts, and at Uruk (from which is derived the biblical Erech, modern Iraq) according to others.
Whether the prehistoric mythical tales be true or not, the civilised world knew peace and prosperity for a while under the Achaemenid Persian Empire, something it had never known before, according to historians. The Achaemenid empire was the last great attempt at bringing forth the kingdom of light, the kingdom of the lord.
The Aryans, who are all but completely forgotten today, were very influential in the ancient world, centuries before the Achaemenids. One of their ancient epicenters was, I believe, a place which today we know only as “The Burnt City”, but which, clearly matches up with the historical city of Asagarta whose location in Eastern Iran has been lost. Asagarta is Asgard from the Prose Edda, the city of the Asa people. (Asa is an Old Persian word which means horse, like English ass; the Asa people were the horse people; and Old Persian garta means the same as old Norse gard, a round enclosed town or city.)
The other epicenter was the ancient city of Bactria, which was the city of the folk of the West, as the name implies. These people of the West, the Bactrians, were a great world power that rivalled Assyria at its peak, according to ancient Greek writers. They say Bactria was destroyed by the mythical Assyrian King Ninus, founder of Nineveh, around 2000 BC.
Zarathushtra lived in Bactria before it was destroyed, his best friend and patron was the warrior prince of Bactria, Esfandiar. The prince, the champion of his people, did many battles against servants of the enemy, and he is considered one of the greatest warriors of the Aryans. Zoroastrian scripture says that Zarathushtra will be reborn into another man at the end times, and he will revive the path of truth.
Iranians today await the Mahdi, whom they were awaiting before the Arab conquest under the name of Saoshyant, the Savior, Zarathushtra reborn. Today they mourn for Hosein, when before Islam they were mourning for Siavash in almost the exact same manner.
Iranian Shia ideology and tradition is more or less Zoroastrian Mazdaism rebranded. The Iranians chose to adhere to the religion and teachings of the enemy of the Muslims, which was the teachings of Mohamad’s grandchildren and great grandchildren. They did this to spite the Arabs, I am sure, but also because the ideas resonated with them and were echoes of their own ancient ideas.
I am convinced that for the world to survive today, the high ideals of the ancient Aryan warriors and men of knowledge must be brought back from the dead. And they are, in fact, dead. The Christians and Muslims were never more than a pale imitation, and today they are a joke.
There is a war raging in the world, a cosmic war. All must choose a side. Ignorance of the conflict puts one in the enemy’s camp by default. The enemy lies, so we must tell the truth. The enemy hates, so we must love. And so on. All that is really necessary is that we think good thoughts, speak good words, and do good deeds. If enough people out there do this, the enemy has no chance.
The enemy relies on people doing evil deeds and saying evil words and thinking evil thoughts. And because of the insanely evil acts of some of our fellow men, the world is on the brink of a great catastrophe.
Thank you for the clarification on Ukraine. My apologies.
It is well noted.
Upon this rock I will build my church. That is what Our Lord said to Peter and the Apostles. Why is it that Peter is mentioned most of all the apostles in the gospels and Acts? Because of his supreme importance. Did he tell Andrew, John, or James to be the rock. No, Peter. Why are we told in John’s Gospel after Peter has fled back to Galilee, Jesus comes to him and says feed my sheep. Not James, not Andrew, or any of the rest of the Apostles who fled: and not John who had stayed by the cross. Jesus was here appointing Peter to lead, to be the first Pope. Jesus forgave Peter, and made him Pope.
And, sorry, your interpretation of the First Council of Jerusalem is erroneous. Why did Paul and Barnabas go up to Jerusalem? Cause that is where Peter was. Why did Paul berate Peter to his face? Because of Peter’s importance. At the council it is stated that there was a great row, between the gentiles and the majority Jewish Christians. Then Peter speaks! He makes a pronouncement. Everyone falls silent. Why is that? Because Peter had the authority, he was the rock, and the Apostles knew it. Peter actually carried out his first infallible pronouncement, as Pope, because there was no recourse in tradition to support it. He settled the matter. First major obstacle for the nascent Church is clarified by Peter, inspired by the Holy Ghost. The Apostles fell in line. Luke then mentions James spoke to clarify some issues, and also because he was the bishop of Jerusalem, he needed to create unity.
Why is it that when the Holy Ghost falls on the Apostles and Our Lady, Luke relates Peter’s speech to the Jews. Was it because he was a better orator than the others? Nope.
Christ instituted the Papacy, and it has survived through till now, and He instituted One Church. Now, the New Testament record shows that the Apostles accepted his authority, and the Church remained one. Now I know that there was a lot of skullduggery round the split, and neither side comes out with any credit, but could it also have been that the other patriarchs didn’t have the humility, and the love for Our Lord that the apostles had shown, in giving way to Rome. Now we have the Orthodox churches which are tied to nationalist institutions, unlike the Roman Catholic Church which is universal. It is said that the Patriarch of Constantinople said he would rather be subject to the Turk than the Pope; well, he got his wish.
Now, don’t get me wrong. It is one of the greatest sorrows that the schism happened. The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox communion have so much in common than the Protestants. And our joint many devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary/Theotokos and we both hold Her in the highest esteem. To Catholics there is no person or angel greater than Her after the Blessed Trinity.
Now it will be through Her that the schism will be healed. In Roman Catholicism we venerate Her and Her many apparitions and visitations to the world. One of the greatest of these happened at Fatima, in Portugal in 1917. Three peasant children, aged ten and under, witnessed her apparitions there. Slight detour, but Fatima is so called because it was the name of a Muslim girl in the Middle Ages who married a Catholic nobleman, and converted. Nothing of the supernatural happens without meaning. One of the important messages the Virgin gave was that She would return and ask the Holy Father in communion with the Bishops to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. She said:
“If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace. If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. … The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”
Actually the Blessed Virgin did appear in 1929 to Sister Lucy, the last surviving visionary at Tuy in Spain where she was a Dorothean sister, to do exactly that: call the pope and the bishops to make the consecration. Now 1929 is the critically important date, as it later was made known to sister Lucy by another vision, this time of Jesus as a young boy, as a message to to the Church. He said, ““ They did not want to heed My request!… Like the King of France they will repent and do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church: the Holy Father will have much to suffer.”» The reference to the King of France is about the fact that Our Blessed Lord told Sister Mary Alacoque in the 17th century to ask the King to consecrate France to His Sacred Heart. None of the Louies did it, and to the day Louis XVI lost his throne. So the 100 years is a very important milestone, and a great warning to the Church.
Oh if only the Pope had made the simple consecration when asked, all that bloodshed in Russia and the massacring of Orthodox christians, World War II, and all the bloodshed since would not have happened.
In short it hasn’t happened as Our Lady asked. There have been various attempts by the popes but not as requested. We still await for the Pope to do it.
So the consequence is not what happened to Russia and the world but also to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The state of the Church is dire, because of Her enemies not just from without, but also within. Ecclesiastical freemasonry has taken over the Vatican and the forces of anti church are in control. We now have the critical situation where an antipope sits on the See of Peter. Yes, Bergoglio is an antipope. He is an antipope because Pope Benedict failed to resign the papacy as laid down in church law. Benedict was hated by the faction that Bergoglio led, and the pressures on him to abdicate were immense. There is a canon that says that if a pope were to resign under duress then it is null and void. But most importantly Benedict failed to resign the “munus” in latin and just said “ministerio”. The former is his office, or rather the charge laid onto him by Christ, the latter is ministry. It is as if POTUS had failed to resign his office and just his duties. If you were to read his declaration you would notice that the latin is lousy with 40 errors in it. Why is this, when Benedict has a brilliant mind and is a noted latinist?
The rule or canon that regulates the matter of a pope resigning was created by Pope John Paul iI in 1983. Canon 332,2 stipulates that he must resign using the word munus. Why would JP2 do this when no-one has resigned the papacy for over 700 years? Note that Benedict still wears white, is called Your Holiness, and wears the papal ring. Surely, he would have followed Pope Celestine V, who was the last pope to resign, and leave the Vatican and wear a priest’s black cassock!
So Benedict is still the Pope! Bergoglio, who hates the Church, is an antipope. Remember that Our Lord said to Peter, I have prayed for you that you do not lose the faith. If Benedict had resigned Our Lord would have been a liar. It is my contention that Benedict did this knowingly, he had many enemies in the Church who wanted him out. But he sold them a pup and they ran with it! The conclave was illegal and invalid; the bishops and cardinals are in schism and not in communion with the True Pope. Everyone believes the error that Bergoglio is the Pope. This is the scary situation with state of Catholicism at the moment.
This major digression is to show the major significance of the Pope in these times. As there are no bishops in union with Pope Benedict XVI theoretically he could do the consecration himself! Now, when the Pope does make the consecration – he has until 2029 – the benefit will be to the entire Church. I believe that the conversion of Russia will be to save the Roman Catholic Church, and unite Christendom.
Whatever ethnicity they were, jew was not one of them.Came into use with one of translations of bible in 17th century.
Jesus was not a jew.
Petros = Saul = Stone (or Cliff). Possibly rabbi Jesus (=Joshua) may have been in lve with playng wieth words?
Anyhow, it seems strange that he should have said “upon which … build my church”, since there is no evangelical evidence otherwhere for him wanting to build any church or churches — as h believed in a soon-to-come apocalypsis.
Paul, here’s a good video that addresses the Orthodox/Catholic issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zXs_cUSjQ&t=1657s
To make a long story short, the Roman church changed its beliefs (the Creed), its ecclesiology, Liturgy, prayers, devotions, forms and practices of monasticism… basically everything. The result is that, after nearly 1000 years of schism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism no longer resemble each other, almost at all.
A couple of years ago I was visiting the Montserrat monastery near Barcelona, around Christmas time, and I looked inside one of the churches and expected to see icons, or at least beautiful statues representing the Nativity of Christ. But, there were just some South Park-esque cardboard figurines on an “altar”. Both I and my non-religious Spanish friends were disappointed. This would never be possible in Orthodoxy, by any stretch of the imagination.
Unfortunately, I think it’s too late to fix the situation in the Roman church. But, when I visit other western monastic sites (typically from 1000 years ago or earlier), I still get the sense that Saints lived there a very, very long time ago.
The thing you left out as you continue to call him a pope is who created this position, for it was not God or Jesus,no where in the bible do you find the term pope.Now the so called pope (the church) as you call him has tried for years upon years to force that type of religion on not only Russia but the rest of the world, which leads me to believe its a false religion as Jesus spoke of false religions and should be treated as such.!!
Your point is addressed near the beginning of the article.
Read it carefully.
Now you are getting all protestant! If it aint in the Bible it aint true. Sorry, but it is still there, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.” That is the truth which you refuse to accept. There are titles galore in the Orthodox churches which are not mentioned i the Bible. So what?
Blue dog. Upon this rock I will build my church. Christ gave Peter the authority. The Church has been carrying out Jesus command to proselytise the world which He gave the Apostles just before He ascended into heaven. How can a billion and a half adherents to the Catholic faith be from a false religion? A greater success rate than the Orthodox Churches.
I am impressed by your zeal defending the Catholic religion.
The article does not profess one religion or another to be false. Please do not take it that way.
The article describes verified & documented historical events that are all connected.
It offers a glimpse of how the original Orthodox church was created & almost destroyed & how the Roman Catholic religion was born.
I thank you for your comment. First let me say that God bequeathes graces on both churches, and it is of the highest shame and dishonour to Jesus Christ that this schism has meandered for so long. The RC Church accords the Orthodox with a sacred priesthood, confecting the sacraments and a profound spirituality. Look at what unites us: sacraments, priesthood, bishopric, reverence for the Blessed Virgin Mother, the Blessed Trinity etc. These are far more than the Protestants who are profoundly outside the ark of salvation.
Now, I will contradict you about whether a religion is false or not. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Outside of the Church there is no salvation. I believe that it means that Christ only instituted one church for the salvation of souls. This is absolutism, and rightly so. The ancient Israelites were castigated for allowing altars to be erected to worship false gods. Likewise we cannot have that in Christendom. I feel, and I am but a layman, that this schism will be healed, and it will all resolve around the Pope. It has always been the case.
I don’t understand how the problem with the papacy could arise. The figure of Peter is of paramount importance in the New Testament. It always comes back to the Petrine Primacy.
I would contest that the disagreements that the Council of Jerusalem had to deal with were enough to cause a fracture in the Early Church. It had to be resolved. And it was by Peter. Why? Because Christ instituted the position of Peter to deal with these issues. At the First Council of Jerusalem was the first example where the infallibility of Peter was exercised. As I have stated before there were no traditions or Jewish sacred scripture which defended the position of Paul against the Jewish Christians with which Peter sided, It was a Petrine moment to define doctrine, and he did it against his own interests, being a member of the Jewish Christian camp.
There are countless other times when the Papacy has made a defining moment in dogma or history. I might single out – the Galileo case where the Pope defined Heliocentrism as a heresy. Proponents of Galileo gloss over the fact that he rescinded his beliefs before he died. In the 19th century Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, under Pius XII in 1950 the Annunciation was defined as dogma. Each time it involved the figure of the Pope. And as I have outlined before, once again it is the figure of the Pope who will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I have heard credible reports that when President Putin was at the Vatican to meet Antipope Bergoglio he said that that Russia had no problem with it. I say this as there were numerous times when the consecration wasn’t done because the cardinals said that we mustn’t upset the Orthodox Church.
I believe that the union of the two great churches is not about one subjecting to the other but about the salvation of Christianity. We both have much to learn from one another. These churches have been segregated for too long, the Blessed Mother wills that this must end. Let us rejoice!
This is a good example of the ‘petrification’ of the papist minds.
The all too often quoted passage of Matthew 16:18 ‘on this rock I will…’ was always interpreted in the Orthodox Church as ‘on the rock of your confession’, Peter’s confession that ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’. The ‘Rock’ is the Christ and “no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” and as Peter himself declared: “He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone.”
Jesus didn’t give Peter any power when he said: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. It was the promise that Peter would receive the same powers that He would bestow of every one of the Apostles: “Then said Jesus to THEM again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on THEM, and saith unto THEM, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:21-23).
And “behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven” (Luke 24:49-51).
The Church was actually founded at Pentecost.
But how can you not be puzzled and irritated when despite the comprehensive rebuke of the papist interpretation of Matthew 16:18, the papist answer is admonishing the Orthodox that they did not read… Matthew 16:18!
I agree with you. John 14:6 Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but by me. Salvation is exclusively to those that accept Jesus Christ as Lord. Roman Catholicism is and always has been a political organization with a mask of piety. Certainly, individual Catholics are saved as long as they focus on Christ for their faith.
In closing, if the Roman Catholic was church is the agency of the creator God and his Messiah then Mexico which has been exclusively Catholic for 200+ years would be paradise on earth. Would it not?
Sorry you are clutching at straws to defend an indefensible position. The rest of the Gospel accounts show that Peter was given authority, ‘upon this rock’. Why did Christ visit Peter in Galilee after the resurrection to ‘feed my sheep’. This is probably the moment that such authority was invested on Peter. Why is it that Peter speaks to the Jews at the first Pentecost, why is it that Peter decides the contentious issue at the First Council of Jerusalem; and why is it Luke records his words: because Peter had the authority, he led the early church. If Peter had not been given the authority the church would have collapsed at that first council.
The Christ went to Galilee not to ‘visit’ Peter, but because He convoked all the disciples there to see Him and to give them His final instructions: “tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you”. Jesus actually forgave Peter for his triple denial when He asked Peter three times if he loved Him more than the others and restored him in his Apostolic dignity.
Don’t be obtuse, please. John includes it in his Gospel for a reason!
Sure that John included it in his Gospel for a reason. The point is that it was not for your reason!
The repetition of the miraculous catch of fish is the repetition of the call to Peter of Luke 5:1-11. Notice that it was Peter who did not recognize the Lord, but “that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord”. Jesus tries again the faith of Peter announcing him that he would suffer martyrdom. But will let John live to testify ‘of those things’: “Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true”.
”all thanks to the mass slaughter of the Orthodox Christians by the Muslims.”
If you only you can change that to ”all thanks to the mass slaughter of the Orthodox Christians by the ottomans”.
The ottomans waged wars on muslim lands too, if ottomans were islamic then why invade countries which were already under islamic rule. Morocco is the only country in north africa the ottomans did not succeed to take
Dear Giorgi Nektarios Selimos,
Thank you from my heart for this article.
I hope many more doubting catholics get to realize and understand the truths you have spelled out in it.
Gregor, Thank you for you kind words.
God help us all.
Never forget that the Western Churches had for 1500 years maintained faith in the very false doctrine of “Saint” Augustine that men are inherently evil and besotted with “Original Sin” inherited from the loines of Adam because he had sinned against the God-given edict/ukas that he and eve should never taste the fruit from the tree of knowlwdge/wisdom. What an affront it must have felt like for the West to observe that Konstantin built a chorge in memory og the “Sanctity of Wisdom” (=’Hagia Sophia’)!
Giorgi Nektarios Selimos: Thank you for your clear words and short but easy to understand history lesson. Please if you would not mind, continue with your writings or perhaps provide a path for those who wish to learn more. I feel that in these times an honest understanding of history might be critical to our survival.
Thank you Nick,
I Will continue.
The truth always will set us free.
God bless you.
Giorgi Nektarios Selimos
Nick I will watch our video as I need to study this very sad rupture in Christendom.
Like you I am aghast at the sorry state of some of our churches and cathedrals. This is the work of Satan as he seeks to attack the one true church. The destruction of both Churches – Orthodox and RC – at the hands of talmudists is all foretold. Putting a communist freemason on the See of Peter. It will pass. Our Lady said at Fatima: Russia will be converted and a period of peace will be granted the world. This will be the greatest flourishing of Christianity yet seen. It relies on the Pope to carry out the Blessed Virgin’s command. The remedy is supernatural. Most importantly it falls upon Russia to save the Church. That will be Holy Mother Russia’s crowning glory.
Paul, we’ve got our own problems in the Orthodox world, but total destruction isn’t one of them. Christ protects us! The way back for the Roman church into union with the Russian Orthodox would most likely be for the Pope to retire Catholic bishops and invite Orthodox ones to take their place, encourage all Catholic faithful to accept Orthodox teaching and re-catechesis, and to give up all claim to supremacy of any kind. Basically, all Roman Catholics would have to realize that the past 1000+ years were a deviation away from the true Faith (leading to increasing “strangeness” with time- the last 60 years have been just the head of the pimple, so to speak). In return, you’d most likely get the beautiful western-rite Liturgy served in local languages, married priests (and no more child-abuse scandals), and an extensive redevelopment of monasticism.
Of course I could be wrong about some things, but from my perspective in Russia that’s how it looks.
Peter is a saint, not a problem! And, he founded the patriarchal sees of Jerusalem and Antioch, in addition to Rome (strange that Petrine primacy was never an issue of discussion between these sees, for most of the first millennium… isn’t it?). The problem is the ecclesiological distortion that developed over the years, around the Roman Pope, which allows other deviations to occur.
As for Fatima and other apparitions over the years, we Orthodox view them with strong skepticism. Even if a holy monk claims that he met the Theotokos while out for a walk, there’s always a chance that it was some kind of demonic delusion. Apparitions do not hold sway over our beliefs or our devotions like they do in the west, where they (and their messages) are widely accepted, once approved by the Pope. This is impossible in Orthodoxy. For us, the Christian Faith, without additions or subtractions, maintained from the Apostles to the present day, is our point of reference.
You and other Catholics (especially traditionalists) do not deserve chastisement or suffering, but just some correcting of inherited errors in belief and mentality. You’re most welcome to come back home to Orthodoxy, if and when you’re ready!
Like you we believe that the Revelation of God and our faith ended with the death of John and is contained within the canon of the books that make up the Bible. The apparitions of the BVM to mankind have never and would never deviate from the faith. She constantly exhorts the faithful to do penance and pray the Rosary. The apparitions at Fatima were authenticated by the miracle of the sun before 70,000 people, including atheists and Freemasons and written up in the national and local press. Not since the Resurrection has there been such a miracle. All the Popes since have gone there to give their authority to the visions and to the Virgin’s messages. Even Antipope Bergoglio.
Funny how the Apostles all deferred to Peter, but a thousand years some eastern bishops wouldn’t. That smacks of pride. And because of this split we have the other doctrinal issues relating to Filioque, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Purgatory. Once you can reconcile the issues with Peter, the others will fall into place.
On a personal note, I drifted away from the church for thirty years. That was pride, like the pride of the devil, non servium, but through the grace of God, and the mercy of Our Blessed Lord I am back in the fold.
A note about suffering. It is what we are commanded by Christ to take up our cross and follow him: that is our suffering. It is the blood of the martyrs that seed the Church. Just as the immense suffering of the Russian Orthodox Church has seeded her rebirth.
Paul, we’re talking past each other. Fatima promotes praying the rosary, which Catholics typically do while imagining holy mysteries. From the Orthodox perspective, use of the imagination is a problem, because it can lead believers into delusion. As for penance, we also view this differently. On our side, the way to holiness is through prayer, fasting, and working on breaking sinful habits that keep us from God.
Pride? Really? The Latin Church unilaterally changed the Creed, and demanded a kind of submission to the Roman Pope that had never been seen before in the East. Who was prideful, in fact? For us, the church is the laity, the clergy, and the bishops. That’s it. One bishop doesn’t ever have authority over other bishops, and never has. By mentioning other doctrinal issues, you say basically “submit to the Roman ‘Pope’ and everything else will make sense!”. No, it doesn’t work that way. These Catholic doctrinal and ecclesiological revisions don’t square with our 2000-year-old tradition of unchanged Christian Faith.
It was 1000 years ago….
No one from the Catholic Apostolic Roman world cares, it’s done!
Focus in the enemies of Christ!
They do not fight this or that church. They combat Christ itself! Wake up!
IStop doing the antichrist work!
No one is fighting here.
Just stating facts that the majority of Catholics do not know about the creation of their religion.
Their is nothing wrong with people knowing the truth .
Thanks for your message
But Islam is the religion of peace.
” In Constantinople & the Eastern part of the Empire this resulted in the Unholy Slaughter & Barbaric killings of Bishops, Priests & Christian men of all ages, Women were raped & brutally murdered, children taken into slavery & Christian Churches destroyed or turned into Muslim Mosques including the Grand Church Constantine had built “the Ayia Sophia” which now has once again has been converted from museum to a mosque in 2020 .”
” In 1421 the Officials in Constantinople sent word to the Rome that they needed more help from the Roman Soldiers stationed in the West as the Muslims were barbarically slaughtering people & forcing them to refute Christianity & convert to Islam under the sharp blades of Muslim swords. “
A very welcome and easy to read history lesson, straightforward, simple and carefully placed facts; there is so much other related historical events occurring through the centuries, thank you.
it is important to have a picture of truth, the way of orientation and clarity. Many people have experiences that are divine and inspired, and have no knowledge of Christ, that is how life is now, but to help people to understand the appearance of the anti-Christ, then Catholic and Orthodox truth of history will be of great service.
Orthodox christians were so divided by ”greek church”, ”russian church”, ”bulgarian church”, it was the reason why the unified muslim could conquer them easily, excluding the Russians, because the russians are extremely good warriors.
The Ottomans had a hard time conquering catholics lands because all the time the Pope declared a crusade beating back the ottomans, like in Viena, Lepanto, etc..
Where were the serbians, bulgarians, romanians when greek lands were ravaged by turks in Anatolia?
I am not catholic nor orthodox, I am evangelical, and our salvation is not on our brand of Christianity but Christ Alone and his Divine Gospel.
I urge christians to unite, from all brands, we need to be one to defeat jihadists, globalists and communists.
I decided not to comment on the authors historical retelling of Ottoman conquest, because it’s irrelevant to the author’s excellent premise. but after reading your incredibly misguided comment, I’ll have to chime in.
It was the Serbian Empire that was left alone to fight against the Ottoman invasion. And for over a 100 years was able to drive back the Ottomans until it finally fell. While the western and eastern Holy Roman Empire looked on with glee. Outside of Constantinople, the Eastern Roman Empire no longer existed in Europe. Those ancient lands were once again ruled by the indigenous Serbs. The Greek elite of Constantinople (again the Roman Empire) also aided the Ottomans in eventually defeating the Serbs. Once Constantinople fell, many of the richest families fled to Rome and for centuries to come, aligned with the Vatican.
The Serbian Orthodox Church was given its official independence from the Roman Empire (Constantinople), exactly 800 years ago. Although, Serbs of the Balkans accepted Christianity many centuries earlier. Serbs comprised the absolute majority of the Balkans, well before the Roman Empire finally conquered their lands after 400 years of fighting, soon after the birth of Christ.
The Serbian Orthodox Church was one of only 3 Orthodox churches (Greek and Bulgar being the others) to build Monasteries and churches on Mt. Athos, the most holy land of the combined Orthodox faith. In fact, it was the Serbian church who oversaw the faith throughout the Balkans and Eastern Europe.
Russia was ravaged by the Golden Horde before Ottoman invasion and the Russian Orthodox Church was kept alive not by Constantinople but by the financial and fighting support of Serbian kings. Tsar Dusan sent his armies all the way to Crimea, in support of their Russian brethren. It was Serbia that demanded that Russia be given equal representation on Mt. Athos and the Serbian king gave Serb holy land on Mt. Athos to build Russia’s monastery. Even donating Serbia’s largest silver mine, Srebrenica to the Russian Orthodox church.
Had the greedy elite, the last remnants of the Roman Empire in Constantinople not purposely aided the Ottomans , Turkey would not exist today and the lands of Europe would have never been conquered by the Ottomans. The Pope and all the western empires did not send one soldier to aid the Serbs. They wanted the largest empire in Europe, who happened to be the protector of Orthodoxy, to fail. And finally, this pope and European defense you speak of, against the Ottomans , was spearheaded by the Serbs who guarded all the frontier lands of Europe, after Serbia was conquered.
The term ‘Muslim armys’ should have been clarified by the author. The ottoman phenomena occurred 700 years after Islam in a particular region.The author leaves no such impression, though, to be somewhat fair, his thesis is based around the magnificent Aya Sophia and the established orthodox environment in general.
Secondly, shortly after the consolidation of the orthodox creed. The wrangling and confusion of God’s nature as well as the relegation of divine law to a degree. The complete truth of the essence had lost its vibrancy and required the final messenger Muhammad (peace be upon all the noble messengers) to restore the full truth once again that had unfortunately covered itself in some mist. Hence, the guardianship of the prime Holy lands (Makka and Jerusalem) were transferred to the responsibility of the Muslims. This was divine wisdom at work.The Quran ascribes the blessedness of both places as does the bible.
The Muslims in their history took Makkah peacefully and likewise Jerusalem without the shedding of any blood. A dignified transfer of power. A sure sign of the divine plan. Even when the Crusaders marched, entered and occupied the holy land in its trademark aggression, barbarism and supremacy against the Christians, Jews and Muslims of the region, it was this very responsibility that lifted the spirits of the Muslims to honorably liberate and restore the sanctity of the holy land. Even the western academics, always eager to defame the Muslims, had to acknowledge the bravery and integrity of salahudin Al Ayyubi, who treated and insisted on the rights of even his adversaries.
The Muslims will be honoured with liberating Palestine once again. They have endured a huge brunt of the Zionist project. Wars based on lies and deception and the uprooting of basic humanitarian living ignored by the inaction of the world audience at large including Muslims too. Thus it will fall on their hands once again, however, they will be honoured under the leadership of one of the exalted of creation, namely, the honourable Jesus (peace be upon him).
Immediately prior to the coming of Jesus (pbuh), the Muslims will be tasked with the liberation of Constantinople. Without delving into the reasons for liberating this city, we can assume two things. The Muslims will liberate the city from hostile forces and secondly under the rightly guided leader return Aya Sophia back to its rightful owners. The point is this esteemed task will fall upon the Muslims. Jesus (pbuh) will lead the ultimate endeavour of this liberating force towards Jerusalem for the fulfillment of divine wisdom. The destiny of the Messiah and saviour. The indifference the communities (Muslims, Jews and Christians) had for each other for which the ottomans bear significant responsibility, will be broken. The love Jesus (pbuh) will show for Muhammad ((pbuh) and acknowledge as the final messenger and the validity of the Quran would equally break the spell for the Christians. It’s highly plausible they will remain Christians under the guidance of Jesus (pbuh), but with the removed misgivings of Islam and it’s recognition as God’s revelation. Both communities will be enlightened with mutual respect. Jesus ( pbuh) will lead the nation’s mediating amongst them. His followers will remain in a dominant position until the end of the world
Sadly, just like a part of the Christian and Jewish worlds have fallen prey to the hordes of chaos, so too will a part of the Muslims. The test of worldly enticement and human passions is slowly but surely engulfing mankind. The test of righteousness is being compromised insidiously with the power of control and resources the adversarial bloc commands, obtained with the most unethical and Illegitimate means over time.
The orthodox world too falls into this purview of trial and it is apparent from history and particularly from current times, Russia is resisting and making its stand. One has to view this with hope and be impressed by its spiritual strength.
This does not focus on other civilisational forces who believe in the divine essence and endear towards righteousness. Unfortunately, a great war is forecasted and the eschatology of the world will focus on this region of destiny.
The point is the Muslims were granted a great civilisational age bearing responsibility and trial. If one understands this term refers to those who submit to the divine wisdom, believers represent a variety of flavours. There will be a concerted effort to draw the believers to fight amongst themselves and those who linger with enmity and indifference within their bosoms are likely to do injustice to their own souls. However, in the very end this indifference will dissipate and the fate of the world will culminate in a divinely ordained victory.
The idea that “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax”, and to ‘recognise the Quran as God’s revelation’, i.e. condemning the Christians for worshiping him as God and spreading Islam (“They say, “The Most Compassionate has offspring/ You have certainly made an outrageous claim, by which the heavens are about to burst, the earth to split apart, and the mountains to crumble to pieces in protest of attributing children to the Most Compassionate. It does not befit ˹the majesty of˺ the Most Compassionate to have children” – Surah Maryam) and that this would generate ‘mutual respect’ between Christians and Muslims, is insane. That so many ‘Christians’ fall for this narrative is really disquieting.
When the honourable Jesus (pbuh) returns and clarifies the truth of his nature. That will certainly be a test of faith. For those with exclusive attitudes such a clarification will likely be met with hostile opposition not excluding some Muslims.
As you said he will return as a just ruler. Why would that worry you!
He will dispell any illusions and misperceptions? Surely that would be welcome and eliminate dogmatic wrangling.
It is certainly as per the Quran (a preserved testament solely in its own right) unbefitting of the Most High to have a son. He is unique and absolute in his perfection alone.
To the Muslim this does belittle the honourable Jesus (pbuh) or his status in any way at all. It most certainly elevates the Creator, Sustainer and Cherisher of all that exists to a deserved and worthy station. (My father is greater than I). This has always been an appealing factor why throughout the ages Christians have become Muslims and continues. The Quran is a clear book.
Reconciliation and clarification is prevalent in the above approach. What exactly are you proposing is somewhat ambiguous and uncompromising.
If Jesus is to reconcile the Muslim and Christian world upon the truth and correct faith. It will have have an immediate and significant impact on the world at large.
Jesus will not return as a ‘just leader’ (it was no me who said that but the Muslims) to “reconcile the Muslim and Christian world upon the truth and correct faith”, but as The Judge of the ‘quick and the dead’, every one according to his deeds, at the ‘end of times’ when the ‘world’ will dissolve (‘Dies irae, dies illa/Solvet seclum in favilla/Teste David cum Sibylla-The day of wrath, that day will dissolve the world in ashes, David being witness along with the Sibyl”).
This is what even the Muslims believe, the ‘Yawm al-Qiyāmah’ (“the Day of Resurrection”) or ‘Yawm ad-Din’ (“the Day of Judgement”), God’s final assessment of humanity, the annihilation of all creatures, resurrection of the body, and the judgement of all sentient creatures. Nobody, Christians or Muslims, knows the time. Jesus will judge everyone for their ‘correct faith’ and will condemn to the ‘outer darkness’, to the lake of fire, those who blasphemed against the Holy Ghost. And the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is to deny that Jesus is the Son of God, made flesh for our salvation, as it was revealed by the Holy Ghost through all the Prophets that Muslims pretend to venerate.
The real concern is “not to be found written in the book of life”, because whoever was not “was cast into the lake of fire”.
Should one care about the ‘liberation of Constantinople’ or ‘Palestine’?
I don’t mean to be rude but you seem to have completely missed the point of my above analysis.
The day of judgement is a whole different event. Wherein the Most high will show all and accounting of one’s life and deeds will occur.
Before this event on this mortal earth there will the triumph of truth over falsehood. And the pinnacle of this episode is the return of Jesus (pbuh). This will be a victory and blessing for the believers. And it is a period that will last some time.
This is the period in question. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough.
You have been clear enough. The point is that your ‘point’ is false.
There won’t be a ‘return of Jesus’ as the ‘Islamic eschatology’ and Judaic Messianism see it (i.e. Jesus as the servant of the Mahdi/Messiah, who would come to show Christians that He is not the Son of God and instaure the Millennial Kingdom on Earth).
The ‘Millennial Kingdom’ is in reality the triumph of falsehood over truth, when “there will be the falling away (ἀποστασία/apostasy) first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God”.
For the moment there is still “someone/something that restrains him (κατέχον)”, but it will be removed and “then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming [that will be the ‘Day of Judgement’, the real return of Jesus]: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness”.
So then, no more boasting about human leaders! (1 Corinthians 3:21)
Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no [e]divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are [f]contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, 1Corinthians 1:10
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check. (James 3:1–2)
You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? For when one says, “I follow Paul ” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. (1 Corinthians 3:3–5)
Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not? (1 Corinthians 4:6–7)
or you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! Galatians 5:13-15
Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced[b] so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? Gal. 3
Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity. 1 Timothy 4:12
Given the above scriptures I find it hard to believe that the early church “worked as a team with their churches & consulted each other on troubling issues from time to time & were always in full communion with each other?
If the apostles themselves were beset by dissensions and trouble of leadership I bet my life the Church Fathers were also except perhaps with one conundrum the great distances between them and the lack of mail delivery and face to face meetings? That in fact probably worked towards unity in that when one doesn’t see another for some time it helps matters considerably lol?
Denominations may not have existed in the Early Church but given what St. Paul suffered with the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians the foundations of it were certainly laid. Is it not why we find so many warnings throughout the New Testament about being on ones guard against troublemakers. St. Peter for example:
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:14-16
But the real shame of it all is that look after some 2000 years of history and the church today is a divided house globally fulfilling exactly what Jesus himself said; ‘a kingdom divided against itself will never stand.’ And the Church unfortunately doesn’t stand as a testimony to much except of course fulfilling the words:
And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 2 Peter2:2
Wow, its hard to be a Christian today and true to Anton Sawyer words the world looks at us and they just shake their heads at us saying and rightly so we don’t understand you people.
What gets me the most is our lack of knowledge of the Bible. My word if St. Chrysostom could see our day and the enormous amount of electronic bibles and all of the helps that they never had and the state of affairs’ he would blush with embarrassment. He would turn his gaze towards Heaven and in disbelief just shrug his shoulders in astonishment.
As for St. Augustine I bet he would have a major coronary. And what puzzles me is why is rome or Istanbul so important that they built their Vaticans there? Shouldn’t it have been built where it actually belongs the City of Jerusalem? If the church had done that we could have fulfilled what God said to the Jews:
They made me jealous by what is no god
and angered me with their worthless idols.
I will make them envious by those who are not a people;
I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding. Deut. 32:21
The Moslems were the smart ones lol? And here i am deeply afraid comes the antichrist to build his own temple from which he will declare himself god and thus the end of the world as per Christ of course the Abomination of Desolation.
Finally if the Roman Church wanted a Pope the basis of it is surely seen in the Old Testament with Moses and Samuel and a number of others who stood between the people and God. Could not Moses be seen as a pope of his day? Samuel a Pope of his day etc, etc. Makes leadership easier surely but alas the people did what? Asked for a human king? lol and the rest as they say is history!
My God I want to end on a positive note with ephesians:
o Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
Each Part Does Its Work!!!
Christ gave Peter authority over His Church (the Catholic Church). This is self-evident if you look at the history of the last 1000 years. Following the Great Schism, the city of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire fell into terminal decline. The sacking of the city during the Fourth Crusade only accelerated the inevitable. By the time Constantinople fell in 1453, the Renaissance was already fully underway in the West and, thanks to Church (education, philosophy, theology), learning and innovation was flourishing. It was God’s Divine providence that the newly discovered Americas would be converted to the Catholic faith and it was the Catholic Church that served the Lord and spread His Gospel to the ends of the earth (as far as The Philippines and Australia). Despite the heresies and wars of the Reformation, the Catholic Church held the line against the anti-Christian Enlightenment, secularism, atheism, nihilism, communism and any number of other “isms” that have plagued mankind ever since.
The Church has always stood up for the Truth (Christ Himself) because it IS the Truth (the mystical Body of Christ). John Henry Newman understood this better than most. As an Anglican, he set out to discredit the Catholic Church by going back to its roots and showing how it had lost its way. However, the further back and deeper he looked the more he realised that the Church was right in its teaching and had never deviated from the Truth. In the end, he converted to Catholicism at great personal cost and ended up a canonised Saint.
I prefer not to use the term “Roman” as the Catholic Church is Universal and the one true church. Pope JPII wrote in Ut unum sint that the “Church must breathe with two lungs”. These are the Latin and Greek Churches, the Churches of St Peter and Paul. Some day they will be united. St Paul may have rebuked and corrected St Peter (in Galatians), but he also recognised him as his leader…
I was just thinking the other day as I reminisced over my own life that yeah to their credit and I guess the Orthodox to one will not find them divided up as one will find in the Protestant world. At one time you had the Methodist Church and then guess what you will find today the United Methodist, The Wesleyan Methodist etc etc etc? Same with the Baptists lol. Free will Baptists, Calvinist Baptists, etc etc? Pentecostals all kinds of divisions lol with one that moved into town called the United Pentecostal? And lastly my neighbor who is Dutch talks about one church the Dutch Reformed which is so ultra Calvinistic that I wanted to attend one Sunday morning to see how they worshipped and conducted themselves. He looked at me with fear in his eyes and warned me that I wouldn’t even get in the front door. I replied really that can’t be. He said believe me you won’t stand a chance period. They will not only deny you entrance but will escort you off the property. Later I said too myself what if I showed up in a limousine looking like a million dollars would that help. I also live in a bible belt, a Church on every corner literally with different labels announcing something and as I drive around I say too myself it would not be so bad if it was based upon nationalities. You know theres the Roman, German, French, English, Canadian, American and so forth. Then I say too myself to imagine God on Sunday morning taking all of this insanity in and wonder what his response would be if I asked Him which one is the right one lol
Further how many of them in leadership are actually called by God and not just in it as some kind of a career choice
What a mess…so yeah to their credit they have remained unchanged for millennia though it seems to me many are not happy with Vatican 2
Sir, with all respect,
Christianity means ‘ the way of the Christ’.
If you are actually being Christian, then that is what you are doing.
I am fairly certain that the really really really weird dude in that stupid #[email protected]&×£g hat is not doing that. Neither is his friend in what was once Constantinople.
Outstanding, accurate summary of the history of Christ’s Apostolic Church. The author is correct…most Roman Catholics are unaware of this history, or the fact that the Bishop of Jerusalem (James) presided over a the Council in which Peter was present which ruled on the question of circumcision for Gentiles. Nor do they know that Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome.
You just cannot actually look at the passage and understand the importance of Peter at that Council. The early church was wracked over the question of whether the gentiles should be subject to the Mosaic Law. The Council was called to deal with it. The dissension was enormous. Then Peter got up to speak. He laid down the law. He sided with Paul and Barnabas. There was silence afterwards, why? because Peter, the Rock chosen by Christ, had decided the issue. There was no further dissension after that. The authority of Peter speaks for itself. It needed the one with authority to decide. Peter did exactly that. James’ only role is to give some dietary rules which acted as a sop for the powerful Jewish camp at the council. There was nothing in tradition or the Bible that led to that decision. But it was one guided by the Holy Spirit. And the correct one too.
Then they all went down the pub…..
When I think about the Mosaic Law I think of the words of St. Paul who said:
Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Galatians 3:24
Another translation uses the word schoolmaster and as a schoolmaster that was certainly true for St. Paul.
How many of us can say the same that the Law was our schoolmaster? And looking at the state of affairs maybe some education in that regards is needed and heavily so?
I kind of think that maybe because of its lack of importance in our lives we are returning to what was said to Noah about people being ruled by their own conscience. There is a scripture in Job:
“Beware of turning to evil which you seem to prefer to affliction.” Job 36:21
And how many people both outside the Church but especially within even remember and mention all of the Ten Commandments? Ask around and one will be surprised?
Actually try this as an exercise. Ask your own parents to quote the 10 commandments and see what happens? I know in my own life my parents who were Catholic couldn’t even quote 5 of them. As for my upbringing as a child I was forced almost to the point of abuse the memorization of not the Commandments but the Lord’s Prayer and it has remained with me. At one time I was incensed at the way they treated us kids and the terrible discipline but today grateful.
As for St. Paul if asked to quote the laws of God he could without so much as breaking a sweat not only quote the 10 of them but the other 650 as well. I doubt very much the same could be said for either St. Peter or any other of the original 12. Further to this if that meeting was held in an animist culture in the trees of New Guinea I doubt very much it would have caused any dissension whatsoever. It would rather have been well time to get to work and teach these people.
Lastly, given the words of Christ about every idle word man speaks he will give an account of it on the day of judgment. Mathew 12:36
Woe, gentlemen and women does this mean that every curse word I ever pronounced in my entire life I will give an account for it on the day of judgment? So it is by His law then ‘thou shalt not swear’ that I will be judged and not just on my faith or lack of it on that day?
I think there is a great deal of truth in the statement my people will accept all of the good things that exist in my word while neglecting and even rejecting the hard and difficult things it has to say.
and now the seriousness and importance of the crucifixion in that there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. Without Christ we would all be lost, goners without any hope whatsoever. That is the sum and substance of what blew St. Paul away!
“lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. 26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world…
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? 7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. 14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (Epistle of James 1:21-27; 2:1-26).
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened” (Matthew 7:7-8).
I’m in the Promised Land!!! You better believe it!!!! Jesus is indeed alive and He is everything!!!!!
Wow these lyrics wow, just wow!
But also remember this:
1: The Hagia Sphia was etacked over and over aigain by the populace of Kanstitonople dseveral timed turing the 6th fo 10th centuries fo títialotrrie and fo mac´kin picktures o holy personages
2. NO Arab muslim ever enccoutced on th Hagia Sophia — that would have beebn contrary to Islam.
3: The Veneians , however, desecrated Hagia Sophie, due to thei apparte rekuígion which denies the immortality of himan souls, — and thus no sophia– i.e. ‘visdom’
4: What was the state of the Hagia Sophia cathedral when Mahmut the great possessed that hualte citée — dare You say that it was still in use as a Christian /Roman Catholic or eastern Orthodox .centdre of worhip?
I challenge Youhereby to answer these thoughts presented from NORWAY (we had wikings in th varbager imperial guard corps there)
The first and foremost task of any religiIion is to control and unifyu the the populace — or to unify opposition to the established rule — either for the Stat e (be it Roman, German , engkish or Russian) — or for some dissident group (most sypicly nowadays the false racist aryan/germanic religion of ‘Zionism’.
Thus: Why scounder and defame religion at all: Why cannot every person suffering from the deloushon of “God” quitally go away and worshio´p withaut botherins thos é amióngst the rest of us who do not want to be bothered by superstition — be it of Roman , Jerusalemic, Istanbullic or Muscovite delusions?
I appreciate what you are trying to say. Religion is a personal matter, it is about each individual working for their own salvation.
I would go as far as to say that all religious institutions are corrupt in essence. And I think historical facts, namely the actions of religious institutions over the centuries, more than back up my estimation. So, my advice is, do not judge religion by the acts of religious institutions.
Just look at the comments here. People arguing over Paul vs Peter, or whatever, each trying to legitimize their respective institution. A few Muslims trying to claim that Islam has been a peaceful religion, while the Christians are convinced that theirs is the peaceful one, forgetting the dozen crusades, the inquisitions, the genocide of native populations, etc.
What does any of this have to do with the salvation of the human soul after death?
But on one point I must correct you. Zionism is not a religion. It is not a Germanic phenomenon. And the Germans were never called Aryans until relatively recently, when they started calling themselves that.
The Aryans were the ancient people of Iran, and a certain faction of the population of ancient India.
In all the Roman histories that I have read, I have yet to come across the Germans referred to as Aryans.
German ideas of Aryanism were cultural appropriation, seemingly with the intent to discredit the ancient Aryans, perhaps the most noble people that ever lived, if the actions of Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great are any gauge.
Surely there is some conspiracy, that as an Iranian, I cannot say the name of my ethnic-cultural group, without facing derision and disdain, when my people have never done anything to bring shame on the name.
Thank you for your extraordinary Real Story – of Constantinople and the World –
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
1 Corinthians 13:12
God bless you Judith
Constantine the Great didn’t build the ‘Sohia’ Church it was built by Justinian around 525 AD; and Constantine didn’t become sole Emperor of the Roman world till 321 AD. From 308 till 321 he held half the Western Empire and Licinius ruled over the eastern half.
This author has a very poor grasp of history
In your rush to find errors it seems you did not read the article carefully.
You will see that I Write St. Constantine ” Decided” to build the Ayia Sofia & Began to do so under his reign” Sadly Constantine did not live long enough to see the building Fully completed as it was the most Breathtaking & spectacular Church ever constructed in the History of the earth until that time & was very complex architecturally.
I also did not quote the Exact year St. Constantine became the sole emperor only the fact that he did.
Sadly writing the complete history of Constantinople is not possible in a brief easy to understand article.
It would require a whole book. Something People these days just don’t have time in their busy lives to do.
Hence the brief concise article interconnecting key historical & verified facts in an easy to follow/comprehend manner.
Here is link for you explaining the build in more detail.
This article claims that one will not be blameless in front of God if one doesn’t tell or support the truth, yet the author has no issue in lying and fabricating facts!
“ In 1421 the Officials in Constantinople sent word to the Rome that they needed more help from the Roman Soldiers stationed in the West as the Muslims were barbarically slaughtering people & forcing them to refute Christianity & convert to Islam under the sharp blades of Muslim swords”
This is absolute B.S. When you think your faith is superior over others, you’ll create false claims to justify your supremacy and hate.
Look at the Crusaders and their barbarism in the name of Christianity…
Or look at the Spanish Inquisition and the slaughter of Jews and non-Christians in Spain!
Pathetic! Ignorant! Despicable!
Mr. Selimos, you say, “The Throne of the Pope is an interesting case as there is no evidence in the Bible or any Historical religious texts there was ever 1 single Bishop that should or did preside over all other churches in Christianity.” As recorded in Scripture, Jesus Christ was one single bishop who presided over all Christians in His day. After His death, eleven of His original twelve apostles, as well as a twelfth to replace Judas, presided over the Church led from Jerusalem. (Since this council of twelve had no subsequent additions to it, it gradually died out.) Gal 2:9 records three of the council as outranking the rest, on account of being “pillars.” These three were St. James, who succeeded the Christ, and who is counted as the first bishop of Jerusalem, St. Peter who succeeded him as bishop of Jerusalem, and St. John who succeeded him as bishop of Jerusalem. Each of these bishops of Jerusalem was, in succession, one single bishop who presided over all Christians in his day, as amply recorded in surviving religious texts. St. John in particular ruled the Church at a time when there was nobody else left in the original council of twelve. He ruled alone.
As Dr. Eisenman deduces in his text, James the Brother of Jesus, St. James appointed St. John to be a pillar, i.e., to be his second vicar, after St. Peter. The verse you cite later in your article records Jesus Christ appointing St. Peter as His vicar. Dr Eisenman explains how this is His second vicar, after St. James. When St. Peter traveled to Rome, he similarly appointed St. Linus, St. Cletus and St. Clement as three bishops in Rome, in apparent imitation of the three pillars in Jerusalem. Because St. Peter was in Rome, he is counted as the first bishop of Rome, St. Linus, who was in charge of Rome after the death of St. Peter, is counted as the second bishop of Rome, St. Cletus, who succeeded him, as the third, and St. Clement, who succeeded him, as the fourth.
It is incorrect to say that the first bishop of the church in Rome was Pius 1 (142-155). The title, pope, arose in the third century, so it never was applied to Pius I. To my knowledge, you are correct to say that Pius I never referred to himself being the universal leader of Christians during his service to the Lord and to the people of Rome.
With the destruction of Jerusalem in 135, the complex central organization of the Christian Church came to an end. From 135 to 325, bishop was the highest formal office in the Church. An episcopal see might have one bishop or might have two or more bishops. In a see with two or more bishops, such as Rome or Antioch, the bishops were ranked in order of seniority. The most senior was the bishop of the episcopal see, and, at his death, the most senior remaining bishop in the episcopal see succeeded him. The way Greek is spoken, it would be natural for Greek speakers to refer to the most senior bishop in an episcopal see with two or more bishops as being the archbishop, even as early as the first century, although a written record of the title, archbishop, does not appear until centuries later.
This form of episcopal succession is the original form in the Church. In the canon law of the Catholic Church, it is still the primary way for a bishop of Rome to succeed a bishop of Rome. According to canon law, the pope of Rome can appoint a coadjutant bishop of Rome. At the death of the pope, the coadjutant bishop would succeed as pope, and the College of Cardinals would not be convoked. The College of Cardinals is a contingent procedure that elects a pope only when there is no coadjutant bishop of Rome. Since no pope has appointed a coadjutant bishop of Rome for centuries, the College of Cardinals has become the normal form of episcopal succession in Rome, but under canon law the original form of succession is still a possibility.
The modern Catholic terminology is to refer to the most senior bishop of an episcopal see as the ordinary bishop and another bishop of the see with a right of succession as a coadjutant bishop. An auxiliary bishop is another bishop of the same see with no right of succession. This is modern terminology. The ancient terminology probably was to refer to the most senior bishop as archbishop and the others as bishop, the understanding being that every bishop in the see has the right of succession.
The episcopal sees with two or more bishops were the more important sees, which were older, more populous and more prestigious than the sees with one bishop. They were also autocephalous. At the death of the bishop of a see with one bishop, the bishops of neighboring sees would consecrate a successor, and a neighboring see with two or more bishops can be expected to have had more influence on the choice of the successor than a neighboring see with only one bishop in it. Thus, the organizational form of the autocephalous ecclesiastical province or metropolitanate arose spontaneously after the destruction of Jerusalem in 135, before being formalized in 325.
Ethiopia and Armenia became the first two countries to adopt Christianity formally. These Christians recognized the bishop of Alexandria as the leader of their Church, and the term, pope, came into use in the third century to refer to the bishop of Alexandria. St. Peter appointed St. Mark to go to Alexandria as its bishop in the first century. Since St. Peter did not go to Alexandria himself, as he did to Antioch and to Rome, St. Mark is counted as the first bishop of Alexandria. Ethiopia and Armenia each later came to be organized as an ecclesiastical province under a metropolitan. In all likelihood, the primate of Ethiopia and Armenia was called an archbishop before 325, when the term metropolitan came into use. The bishop of Alexandria was superior to these two primates, and the term, pope, came into use to describe his office.
Shortly thereafter, the term, pope, came to be applied to the bishop of Rome, as well. Emperor Constantine recognized the Christian Church. The first ecumenical council, the first at Nicaea in 325, reorganized the informal ecclesiastical provinces to line up with the civil provinces of the Empire, creating the office of metropolitan in each province and changing the way a metropolitan (or archbishop) was chosen from the way that was informally in place before then, except in the Petrine episcopal sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. At the death of a metropolitan, the bishops of a province now elected the successor. The Council of Nicaea recognized the special authority of the three Petrine sees as superior to all the other metropolitanates. Papal infallibility derives from the verse in Mt 16, which you cite. The Council of Nicaea recognizes this verse in the three Petrine sees.
The early Church used the term, exarch, to distinguish a bishop whose authority extended beyond his province. The second ecumenical council, the first at Constantinople in 381, recognized four additional exarchates to make seven exarchates in all. The council limited five of these to one civil diocese each (the Empire comprising fifteen civil dioceses). This is the seven-headed beast to which St. John refers. The council recognized the remaining two exarchates as having authority throughout the Empire—the papacy of Rome and the episcopate of Constantinople. Although Constantinople was neither a Petrine see nor a metropolitanate, the council recognized it as second only to Rome. The primacy of Rome is not self-proclaimed. The acts of this Church council of 381 proclaim it.
The third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, permanently abolished the four novel exarchates, including the exarchate of Constantinople, and left the papacy of Rome as supreme, one single bishop who presides over all Christians, as amply recorded in surviving religious texts. The fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, unlawfully restored the exarchate of Constantinople. As St. John puts it in Rev 13:3, “And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.”
The pope of Rome rejected the canon restoring the exarchate of Constantinople but made the mistake of accepting the remainder of the acts of Chalcedon. This created the first schism of the Church, and split the Petrine see of Rome away from the Petrine sees of Antioch and Alexandria.
It is inaccurate to say that for the first 1000 years after Christ the Church was essentially one body that had five historical patriarchal centers in strategic locations as advised to by Christ Himself and the mutual agreement of all of the twelve apostles. The unity of the Church first ended in 135 with the destruction of its headquarters in Jerusalem. The Church reunited in 325 and split again in schism in 451. There were never five lawful patriarchal centers. Three Petrine sees were recognized as exarchates in 325. Four more exarchates were recognized in 381 and permanently abolished again in 431. Additional exarchates were lawfully created, such as the patriarchate of Moscow. Nowhere is it recorded that Christ Himself recommended Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome as special in any way. His twelve apostles may have agreed to St. Peter’s founding of episcopal sees at Antioch, Alexandria and Rome and St. Andrew’s founding of an episcopal see at Antioch, but there is no reason to suppose that the twelve were any less supportive of St. John’s founding of the episcopal see at Ephesus or the missionary work of any of the other apostles, such as St. Thomas’ in India.
Although Emperor Constantine recognized the Christian Church and reorganized it to follow the provincial organization of his Empire, it is inaccurate to consider him to have founded the Christian Church. Jesus Christ founded the Christian Church, and it flourished in spite of severe Roman persecution. All legitimate authority in the Church derives from the apostolic succession of His bishops and not from the authority of an emperor. The ornateness of a church building has no bearing on the legitimacy of a Church. There was no pentarchy when the emperor called the first ecumenical council. Rather, the council recognized three Petrine sees as exarchates. Rome was the imperial capital at the time—not Constantinople—and the spiritual authority of Rome derives from its status as a Petrine see—not from its status as an imperial capital. The notion that an emperor can transfer exarchical authority from one see to another simply by moving the capital is absurd, because exarchical authority derives from Church councils not from imperial decrees.
It is inaccurate to say that the early Church deferred the matter of the Nicene Creed. The first ecumenical council at Nicaea of 325 ordained a creed that professed faith in the Holy Ghost without asserting from Whom He proceeds, at a time when alternative creeds were already in use, such as a creed in Rome, which professed that He proceeds from the Father and the Son. The second ecumenical council of Constantinople of 381 divisively put forth a new creed to say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. The third ecumenical council at Ephesus of 431 restored the original creed and prohibited introducing new creeds, but the understanding of the participants at Ephesus was that the creed of 381 was consistent with the faith enunciated in 325. The same council of 381 recognized the primacy of Rome. Centuries later the pope of Rome decreed the creed that professes the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son to be legitimate. In the Great Schism, neither side obeyed the acts of Ephesus, which restored the original neutral creed and which prohibited bringing forth new creeds.
The acts of the fourth ecumenical council at Chalcedon of 451 refer to the Roman senators as living in the new capital of Constantinople. The bulk of the powers that be must have wanted the capital to stay in Constantinople, because that is where it stayed. The popes of Rome may well have wanted the emperor to stay in Constantinople too. Rome ruled the Church because it was a Petrine see and because the second ecumenical council recognized it as supreme—not because it was a former imperial capital. Even if a few senators may have wanted to revert to Roman Paganism and restore Rome as the capital, there is no reason for a pope of Rome to support them in their desire to be Pagan. The emperor did not build the Church. Christians did.
It is inaccurate to say that the elite “were desperate to find a way to make Rome the power centre once again. The Great Orthodox Church that Constantine had built & united his empire in Christianity with, was caught in the middle of this political struggle with Western Roman elites & a lot of power & money was at stake. Not to mention many Roman politicians still found it difficult not worshipping the Old Roman Idols from previous Emperors.”
It is inaccurate to say that the Roman Church was disaffected and split from four other patriarchates. Both Constantinople and Rome split from Antioch and Alexandria in 451. The original exarchate of Jerusalem came to an end in 135, and the restored patriarchate of Jerusalem was little more than a titular entity. It is inaccurate to say that after the Great Schism, “The Roman Church was now officially alone & the 1st church in History of Christianity to split from the remaining Apostolic Orthodox churches.”
Constantinople and Rome also persecuted the Oriental Orthodox in the first persecution of Christians by Christians starting in 451. The acceptance of the acts of Chalcedon legitimated this sort of persecution, which you rightfully condemn, but you project all the persecution onto Rome, without acknowledging the role that Constantinople played in the persecution of Alexandria. The entire Great Church—including all the Eastern Orthodox—is at fault for accepting this sort of persecution as legitimate.
As you note, the donation of Constantine was a forgery. The primacy of Rome depends on its being a Petrine see (with reference to Mt 16) that the second ecumenical council recognizes as supreme. Constantinople, by contrast, is not a Petrine see, is not infallible, and was lawfully abolished as an exarchate in 451, long before the Great Schism. The infallibility of the pope of Rome has to do with Rome being a Petrine see. The recognition of the three Petrine sees by the first ecumenical council of 325 (two of which were papacies at the time) is evidence of early Christian belief in papal infallibility. St. Peter was the Vicar of Christ, because Christ appointed him as much, as recorded in the verse of Scripture you cite.
Perpetual abstinence for clergy dates to the time of Christ. It is inaccurate to describe abstinence for the clergy as a novelty. In the first century, married couples were ordained together as deacon and deaconess or as priest and priestess or as bishop and bishopess. The clergywomen, regardless of rank, performed only the mysteries of baptism and unction, but the bishopesses had the same theological training and respect as the bishops. A bishop was addressed as lord, a bishopess as lady, a priest or deacon as father, and a priestess or deaconess as mother. Both spouses were perpetually abstinent.
What is now the sacrament of marriage in the Church was originally a hieros gamos rite, in which a couple being ordained took vows of perpetual abstinence in a ceremony that otherwise resembled a Jewish wedding. The wedding at Cana may be an example of this rite. In the early Church, ordinary marriage was a civil ceremony, e.g., a Jewish wedding, and was not originally a mystery of the Church. The Church generally forbade remarriage after a divorce. In the second or third century, the Church began to modify the hieros gamos rite for lay marriages—keeping the vow never to remarry, even after the death of a spouse, but omitting the vow of perpetual abstinence.
In the ninth century, the Byzantine emperor required this sacramental marriage of Christians who were not slaves, which effectively abolished civil marriage for Christians. At some point, the Catholic Church changed the vow to permit remarriage after the death of a spouse but not after divorce, while the Orthodox Churches considered the first two remarriages after the death of the spouse to be sinful and to incur a sanction. I do not know how any Orthodox may have come to accept remarriage after divorce, but it is unscriptural and certainly a novelty.
You are correct to worry about Catholics losing their faith in Christ because of all the repeated sexual scandals and because of church finances and negative press. God destroyed Sodom not just because of its perversion but because of its inhospitality to angels. The Christian persecution of the Christian is a similar inhospitality, and the Catholic should fear the vengeance of God for all the sins of Sodom, which He promises Rome in Rev 17-18. God may smite Rome as suddenly as He smote Sodom. The Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow should fear Rev 19:20 too. Every sectarian Christian who perpetuates the disunity of the Body of Christ should fear the wrath of God.
The third ecumenical council at Ephesus of 431 provides a framework for Christians who recognize the acts of the first three ecumenical council and the faith of the Church of that time, including Scripture, which nearly every Christian does, to rejoin in communion with one another. Love of neighbor is the will of God.
The Apostles founded many churches, but they did not become bishops of any specifically, although certainly they exercised a supervisory function and, of course, the priestly power with which were endowed. They ordained and appointed bishops.
The first bishop of Jerusalem was James, as related by Eusebius’ Church History (2:2-4):
“James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.
3. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”
4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.” Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” Galatians 1:19″
James the Just was succeeded by Symeon (Eusebius HE 3, ch 11:1-):
1. After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.
2. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph”.
“Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom” [in the time of Trajan].
“But when Symeon also had died in the manner described, a certain Jew by the name of Justus succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who at that time believed in Christ”.
As to Rome Eusebius says only that:
Book III, ch. 1-2: “Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero? These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis.
After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle”.
Book III, ch. 13: “After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him. In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to Anencletus”.
Book III, ch.4:10: “Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier”.
It is clear that Peter did not found the Church in Rome, although his activity there in conjunction with Paul was exceptional. He went to Rome to combat the heresy of Simon Magus, as Eusebius says: “Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life”.
The three ‘pillars’ of the Church were undoubtedly Peter and the sons of Zebedee, John and James, because they have been the witnesses of the Transfiguration of the Christ on Mount Tabor. James was beheaded and ‘replaced’ by James the ‘Brother of the Lord’, called the Just, who had a special revelation of Jesus, like Paul.
The authority of Peter was conferred by Christ, as I have pointed out many times above. Hence his successors have become known as Vicars of Christ, or Popes. There were no three pillars of the Church. One head, the Pope. John was the Apostle loved by Our Lord and it was to him that Christ conferred his mother to go and be the mother of John. She stayed with him till her dormition/Assumption. Even John acknowledged Peter’s authority where he recounts the beautiful moment when the risen Christ seeks out Peter and tells him to feed his sheep. To lead the Church.
“And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision” (Galatians 2:9).
Shouldn’t you find in the Ancient Church Order literature, in the Canons of the Apostles (you find papist practices contrary to these very Canons!) an explicit appointment of Peter as the ‘Vicar of Christ’?
E.g. Apostolic Constitution:
” Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, delivered to us the great mystery of godliness, and called both Jews and Gentiles to the acknowledgment of the one and only true God His Father… With good reason did He say to all of us together, when we were perfected concerning those gifts which were given from Him by the Spirit… These gifts were first bestowed on us the apostles when we were about to preach the Gospel to every creature, and afterwards were of necessity afforded to those who had by our means believed… And to be a Christian is in our own power; but to be an apostle, or a bishop, or in any other such office, is not in our own power, but at the disposal of God, who bestows the gifts. And thus much concerning those who are vouchsafed gifts and dignities”.
“Wherefore we, the twelve apostles of the Lord, who are now together, give you in charge those divine constitutions concerning every ecclesiastical form, there being present with us Paul the chosen vessel, our fellow-apostle, and James the bishop, and the rest of the presbyters, and the seven deacons…”
As I have noticed, no matter how many times the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 through the deforming lenses of papism has been refuted, papism will always fall back on it, a sign of what I called the ‘petrification’ of the western mind, the stonewalling into its solipsistic worldview and relentless attempt to impose its view on the others.
That goes and for the interpretation of the events related in Acts 15.
“And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question… And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, JAMES answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore MY SENTENCE is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. 22 Then pleased it the APOSTLES AND ELDERS WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS AND BRETHERN greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25 IT SEEMED GOOD UNTO US, BEING ASSEMBLED WITH ONE ACCORD, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ….”
So it was not Peter who ‘decided’ the matter, but all the Apostles and elders and the whole church, the council. And the sentence is given by James (speaking in the name of the ‘council’).
What Peter does is to justify himself for the reproaches of Paul that despite his vision which led to the baptism of Cornelius (Acts 10) fell back on ‘judaizing’ at the pressure of ‘men who came as from James’, obviously from among the ‘Pharisees who believed’.