A Letter to Pope Francis Concerning His Past, the Abysmal State of Papism, and a Plea to Return to Holy Orthodoxy
The lengthy letter that follows was written by His Eminence, the Metropolitan of Piraeus, Seraphim, and His Eminence, the Metropolitan of Dryinoupolis, Andrew, both of the Church of Greece. It was sent to Pope Francis on April 10, 2014.
The Orthodox Christian Information Center (OrthodoxInfo.com) assisted in editing the English translation. It was posted on OrthodoxInfo.com on Great and Holy Monday, April 14, 2014.
The above title was added for the English version and did not appear in the Greek text.
Metropolitan Seraphim is well known and loved in Greece for his defense of Orthodoxy, his strong stance against ecumenism, and for the philanthropic work carried out in his Metropolis (http://www.imp.gr/). His Metropolis is also well known for Greece’s first and best ecclesiastical radio station: http://www.pe912fm.com/. This radio station is one of the most important tools for Orthodox outreach in Greece.
Metropolitan Seraphim was born in 1956 in Athens. He studied law and theology, receiving his master’s degree and his license to practice law. In 1980 he was tonsured a monk and ordained to the holy diaconate and the priesthood by His Beatitude Seraphim of blessed memory, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece. He served as the rector of various churches and as the head ecclesiastical judge for the Archdiocese of Athens (1983) and as the Secretary of the Synodal Court of the Church of Greece (1985-2000). In December of 2000 the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarch elected him as an auxiliary bishop of the Holy Archdiocese of Australia in which he served until 2002. He was then appointed preacher and Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Piraeus in 2002, where as in 2005 he was chosen as the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece. He was elected as Metropolitan of Piraeus on the 28th of February, 2006.
Metropolitan Andrew was born in Patra in 1939 and is a graduate of the Theological School of the University of Athens. He was ordained to the Holy Diaconate (1968) and to the Holy Priesthood (1969) by the Metropolitan of Dryinoupolis, Pogoniani and Konitsa Sebastian of blessed memory. From 1968 until his election as Metropolitan he served as a Preacher of the Metropolis. He was elected as Metropolitan of Dryinoupolis, Pogoniani and Konitsa by the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece in 1995.
HOLY AUTOCEPHALOUS ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH OF GREECE
THE HOLY METROPOLIS OF DRYINOUPOLIS, POGONIANI AND KONITSA
44002 Δελβινάκιον / 44002 DELVINAKION, GR www.imdpk.gr, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, Τηλ. Κέντρο / Tel. +3026570 22203, Fax +3026570 22344
THE HOLY METROPOLIS OF PIRAEUS AND FALIRO
Ἀκτή Θεμιστοκλέους 190, 18539 ΠΕΙΡΑΙΕΥΣ / 190 Themistokleous Coast, 18539 Piraeus, GR www.imp.gr, e-mail: email@example.com, Τηλ. Κέντρο / Tel. +30210 4514833, Fax +30210 4518476
April 10, 2014 Greece
With due respect and sincere love, we send you this Episcopal letter, the purpose of which doesn’t come from any selfish motive, but from pure, sincere and selfless Christian love, from Christian duty, from an essential commandment of our Savior Christ, Who “desires all men to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of the truth,”1 and finally from a warm and ardent desire for your salvation. Because of this we feel it to be our holy and mandatory duty, as the least of the members of the All-holy and All-pure Body of Christ, and especially as Orthodox Bishops, who belong as such to the Holy Synod of the Holy Autocephalous Church of Greece, which is our highest ecclesiastical authority, as to the whole and Undivided One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, to endeavor with all our might to restore you to the Mother Orthodox Catholic Church, from which you left and from which you were cut off, a work which we hope, the Uncreated (3) Divine Grace of the Lord cooperating, shall be achieved. This holy obligation of the return of heretics to the Orthodox Church has, of course, holy canonical grounds and basis and is supported by the 131st, 132nd, and 133rd holy Canons of the Local Council of Carthage (418 or 419 A.D.).2
From the outset we must clarify that we Orthodox, not taking part in the politicallycorrect spirit of western and especially ecumenist “Christianity,” do not refer to those religious communities who have, sadly, been separated from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church as “Churches.” But, following the example of our Holy Fathers throughout the ages, refer to them as heretics, and you, Your Excellency, and your followers, we denominate as “Papists” and your heresy as “Papism.” These terms are, for us, not derogatory, neither are they slurs, but they are theological and even technical terms which best describe the spiritual and ecclesiastical delusion and error in which you find yourselves. We, in fact use them with love, for when one loves his brother he tells him the truth hoping to bring him back to his senses.
It should also be made clear that the following words are written with pain of heart and not from some personal bitterness or hatred towards your respectable personage. Our purpose is not to offend you, but to reveal, rebuke, admonish and to refute your deluded and heretical ideas, theories and actions. Our basic rule is that we should love the heretics but rebuke and hate their heresy and delusions. Our only interest is our Holy Orthodoxy, the only place in which humans have salvation. We unceasingly pray that our Lord Jesus Christ gather together the deluded “Pope” and his followers, through repentance and the renunciation of your delusion and heresy, into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, Orthodox Church and to assume as an Orthodox Pope, according to seniority of honor of the Pentarchy and in agreement with the Divine and Holy Canons, the Chairmanship of honor of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches as “primus inter pares.”
An additional reason, which shows the timeliness and importance of our present Episcopal epistle, are the intrigues in the realm of the modern heretical Ecumenical Movement with its ecumenist theological dialogues between Orthodox and Papists, where the representatives from the Orthodox side, animated unfortunately by the panheretical spirit of inter-Christian and inter-religious syncretistic ecumenism, and employing the false ecumenist love, a “love” without true love and unity in the Orthodox faith, deceive you, Your Excellency, claiming that Papism is a so called “Church,” and moreover a “sister Church,” with valid Mysteries (Sacraments), Baptism, the Priesthood and Grace, that Papism and Orthodoxy make up the so-called, “two lungs,” with which the Church of Christ breaths, that you, the heretical “Pope,” are a canonical bishop, successor of the Apostle Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth, who possess the Apostolically, Scripturally and Patristically groundless and non-existent “Petrine” primacy of power over all the Church, and the blasphemous “Papal Infallibility,” instead of the true primacy of honor (διά τό εἶναι τήν Ρώμην πρωτεύουσα) as is commanded by the Holy Canons of the undivided Church of the first millennium to which the Orthodox Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West is entitled, doctrines that are totally unknown and without foundation or witness in the general Tradition of the Catholic Orthodox Church of the first ten centuries and of the eight Holy Ecumenical Councils, doctrines which are a clear blasphemy against the All-Holy Spirit and which show your theological (4) departure and the satanic pride of which you are possessed. Clear proof of the absurdity of the Orthodox Ecumenists is that, while they attribute to you ecclesiastical titles, you who are obviously heretical and erroneous in belief, they do not dare, even though it would be in keeping with their declarations, to come into sacramental communion with you, because they know from that moment they will immediately lose their own ecclesiastical identity. Does this not make up the most blatant proof of the false doctrines of Ecumenism? If they indeed believe their unacceptable and provocative declarations, then let them dare to take the step into sacramental communion, because otherwise they prove by their actions the emptiness of the ecclesiastical titles which they give to you false bishops of the false believers. Clear conformation of the above was the last-minute cancellation of your personal attendance at the celebrations of the 1700th anniversary of the Edict of Milan in Niš, Serbia, on June 10th, 2013,3 and the cancellation of your visit to the Holy Mountain of Athos the same month,4 as rumor has it.
In communicating with you through this present Episcopal letter, we desire that it be made known to you that, according to the diachronic Holy Scriptural, Canonical and Patristic Tradition and according to the infallible conscience of the fullness of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, Papism, of which you are the leader, Your Excellency, is not a “Church,” but a religious community, a parasynagogue, a heresy, an alteration, a demolishing and a total perversion of the Truth, namely, of the very God-man, Christ. Hosts of Orthodox Councils have condemned Papism as a heresy. We will cite some significant examples: The Council of 879-880 in Constantinople, under the Ecumenical Patriarch, Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome, Saint Photios the Great, Equal to the Apostles, which condemned as heretical the teaching of the Filioque, and is considered by the consciousness of the Church to be the 8th Ecumenical Council, because in it were representatives of all the Patriarchates, including the then Orthodox Pope of Rome, John the 8th, and because the decisions of this council were universally accepted. Unfortunately, this heterodox belief has prevailed as your official teaching, from the beginning of the 11th century (1014) until today. Papism adopted after more than a millennium, a heretical teaching, which Rome had already condemned along with the other Orthodox Patriarchates, refuting and condemning itself as a heresy. Besides that, all the subsequent Orthodox Councils, like the Constantinopolitan Councils of 1170, 1341, 1450, 1722, 1838, and 1895 unequivocally condemned Papism as a heresy.5 What is more, all of the Saints who lived after the schism of 1054, such as St. Germanos Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Gregory Palamas, St. Mark of Ephesus, St Simeon of Thessalonica, St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, St. Cosmasof Aetolia, St Nektarios of Pentapolis, Saint Justin Popović and others,6 with one voice, condemn Papism as a heresy. Papism is not a “Church” but a State – the Vatican, a worldly organization, with a government, with you, the “Pope,” as leader, with the Cardinals as Ministers and Secretaries and with the “Bank of the Holy Spirit.” Neither is Papism a “Roman Catholic Church,” because it is neither (5)Roman, nor Catholic, nor a Church. It has no relation with Romiosini or with Romania. It isn’t Catholic since it separated of its own will from the Catholic Orthodox Church in 1054 A.D. and since then it doesn’t possess the fullness of the Orthodox Faith of our Holy Fathers, which you have distorted. You are not a Church, since you became a State, falling, instead, to the third temptation of Christ.7 You accepted the Devil’s proposal to make you almighty earthly rulers in return for your allegiance to him. We Orthodox are the true Roman Catholic Church. We Orthodox are the Romans: to us belong Romania,Romiosini. Orthodoxy is the One Holy, CATHOLIC, and Apostolic Church, the true Roman Catholic Church, as we confess in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith.
The fact that Papism is a heresy is revealed by the appalling false doctrines which you confess. These are: I) the political existence and structure of the Vatican with ministries, bureaucracies and banks; II) theFilioque (the alleged procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son); III) created Grace; IV) the primacy of power; V) the possession of worldly and spiritual power by the Pope; VI) Papal infallibility; VII) the theories that the Pope is the ultimate judge and Archpriest, the supreme authority and monarch of the Church; VIII) Baptism by sprinkling and the separation of it from the mystery of Chrismation; IX) the use of unleavened bread (Host); X) the transforming of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ with the words of institution rather than at the invocation of the Holy Spirit as well as the doctrine of transubstantiation; XI) the depriving of the Blood of Christ to the laity; XII) the depriving of Holy Communion to children; XIII) Maryworship; XIV) the dogma of the “immaculate conception” and the “bodily assumption” of the Mother of God; XV) purgatory; XVI) indulgences; XVII) the so-called “superabundant merits” of Christ; XVIII) the “superabundant merits” of the Saints; XIX) the merits of the works of man; XX) statuary and the secularization of religious art instead of Orthodox iconography; XXI) the mandatory celibacy of the clergy; XXII) the recognition of murderers (Stepinac) as “saints”; XXIII) the doctrine of the satisfaction of divine justice (the result of confusion regarding original sin and the legalism which is prevalent in Papism); XXIV) the rejection of Holy Tradition and the taking advantage of it as a tool for Papal claims (the Pope is Tradition); XXV) the belief that the “infallible Pope” is the only guardian, judge and interpreter of Divine Revelation; XXVI) the socalled “Church Suffering,” which is allegedly made up of the faithful who are presently in purgatory; XXVII) the rejection of the equality of bishops; XXVIII) the Vatican’s centralized and despotic administrative system where the “Pope” is absolute monarch, which introduced Caesaropapism; XXIX) the social/humanitarian character of the monastic orders; XXX) the impersonal and juridical character of the mystery of confession; XXXI) and, finally, the accursed Uniate, the Trojan horse of Papism.8
I) CRISIS IN THE VATICAN
Thus, Your Excellency, because Papism was cut off from the Orthodox Catholic Church, you lost the Orthodox Faith and developed the above heresies, and therefore it is only (6) natural for you to be in a state of continuous crisis, which has even been openly exhibited as of late. “The crisis in the Vatican is a crisis of Papism. One observer commented that the new Pontifex should employ shock therapy to the Church. Another commented that Papism is facing the worst crisis since the French Revolution, while a third compared the current crisis with the Reformation, Calvin and Luther. To a degree, the crisis rhetoric is justifiable. With the trends that weaken the faith in the western world – the rise of personal spirituality, the influence of atheism, the void between traditional Christian ethics and modern reality – Papism has added scandal, hardening and a communicational tactic more orientated to the media of 1848.”9
II) THE SECULARIZATION AND SPIRITUAL DECLINE OF THE VATICAN
It is a general conclusion and universal axiom that evil and corrupt dogmas give birth to an evil and corrupt way of life. As well, the reverse is true that an evil and corrupt way of life gives birth to evil and corrupt dogmas. There exists an unbroken relationship between dogma and lifestyle, dogma and ethics, or, as it is put theologically, orthodoxy and orthopraxis. It is just as bad to have evil dogmas as it is to have an evil way of life. This is because one is the mother of the other; and whoever has the one is reduced to the other. Of course, this axiom is witnessed to in the Holy Scriptures and in the entirety of Holy Tradition.
There is not one, nor a few, but an infinite amount of misconducts and anti-Christian practices which result from the Papist heresies. One such example is the annual “crucifixions” of the faithful on Great and Holy Friday, primarily in the Philippines. This year there were more crucifixions than in any previous years. “Easter in the Philippines, a country where 80% of the 94 million citizens are Papists. Thousands of faithful and tourists arrived in the city of San Fernando in the province of Pambagna 60 kilometers north of Manilla, where more than 30 men were crucified. 57 year old Vilfredo Salvador stated that he was crucified for the first time seven years ago, to give thanks to Christ for all the miracles in his life, but also to atone for his sins.”10 The spiritual shallowness, which you inspire in your simple-minded followers, is unbelievable. As a rule you teach the opposite of that which the Gospel teaches and you serve to totally subject your followers to your designs! We mention as an example the unbelievable magic rites which take place in the papal temples of Latin America, of which even the neopagans are jealous, because the Papists can relive the ancient pagan rites with such accuracy and passion. The point at hand is Christ was crucified in our place, and asks from us, instead, the crucifixion of our passions and our old, evil, corrupted selves!11
Your “clergy,” Your Excellency, in the evenings view films with sensual content. At least that is the claim of the website Torrent Freak, which reveals how “piracy exists even inside the Vatican,” publishing the full list of films and television shows, which were (7) recently downloaded. The nearly 800 priests, monastics, and other faithful, who reside at the Vatican, show as their preference for television showsChicago Fire, Lightfields, The Neighbors and Touch; for romantic films, Love Actually was among the top pics, as well as many other films inappropriate for underage viewers. The website published further information about films which were downloaded inside the Vatican in 2012, including films featuring hard-core pornography! Titles such as TS Pussy Hunters with its transsexual porn star, the lesbian movie, Whipped Ass, and the sadomasochistic Russian Slaves were downloaded!12 Sadly, such reports are hardly shocking when they are seen alongside the thousands of cases of pederasty and child abuse at the hands of “priests” of the “Holy See,” which presents itself as a “Church”!
When a healthy spiritual life, ascesis and the Grace of God are absent, and when luxury, comfort, opulence and power-mongering are found in abundance, it is natural that this corrupt atmosphere will inevitably give birth to such incidents.13 The head of the conference of Italian “bishops,” cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, appeared in an online video giving the host (“Holy Communion”) to a famous transsexual political activist, who was dressed in women’s clothes! The “performance” took place at the funeral of another “priestly darling,” the controversial Genoan “priest,” Fr. Andrea Gallo, who was a confessed Marxist and out-spoken advocate for homosexuals, and who last year was awarded “Gay Character of the Year” by homosexual activists. In fact, during your election, he was in favor of the election of a confessed homosexual as Pope! This same man also proposed homosexual relations between “clergy,” with the aim of reducing the cases of pederasty among the Papist “priests!” At the funeral service, the transvestite was given the floor, who from the pulpit praised the reposed thus: “You opened to us the doors of your church and your heart. I thank you that you made us transsexual beings feel that this was the will of God, and that we were loved by God. We hope that many others will follow your example and somebody will ask forgiveness!” Unbelievable! This impudent transsexual proclaiming inside a Papist temple and before the “clergy” that sodomy is the will of God! Meanwhile, the pathetic “archbishop” not only didn’t kick him out of the temple, but instead, he “communed” him! And what is more scandalous – the Vatican is playing deaf to the protests of the believers, who have characterized the service as a “porno-funeral.”14
The secularization of the “Holy See” has no boundaries. And why should it, since it is clearly a worldly institution, which is concerned only with worldly matters and is indifferent to spirituality? The following incident is clearly representative of this worldly spirit, which rules the Vatican and you, Your Excellency, who call yourself “Pope.” You “blessed” thousands of Harley Davidson motorcycles and their owners during the celebration of the 110th anniversary of the founding of the Harley Davidson Company! St. Peter’s square at the Vatican was filled with motorcycles and the noise drowned out even your own voice when you blessed the faithful who had gathered in the square after Sunday Mass. “Just because we are bikers doesn’t mean that we aren’t catholic,” one rider recounted. Recently the president of Harley Davidson gave you two Harley Davidsons, and even a leather jacket! The absence of spirituality in the western heresy has driven it into such absurdities that now even the “Pope” causes media storms with his (8) “hip” persona!15
We reiterate that there exists a total absence of spirituality in Papism. We are not talking about a “Church,” but a worldly organization that is, at its best moments, a religion – one of many world religions, which is interested in fulfilling nothing more than the base psychological-spiritual urges of its followers. Christ’s true Church is neither a worldly organization nor is it a religion (in the psychological meaning of the term), but is a “new creation,”16 the newly restored community of those who have been reborn in Christ, the “leaven,” which leavens the fallen world, transforming it to a communion of love, based on the prototype of the Triune God, which is an existence of love – the divine workshop, which deifies the human person. Papism, however, is nothing like this, which is clearly proved by its behavior for the last thousand years. You proved it yourself, Your Excellency, during your recent journey to Brazil. To attract the millions of your lost Brazilian followers, you employed the soccer lingo that the fanatic hooligans of the stadiums use as they attempt to drive their opponents into total humiliation. This abysmal “athletic” hate can only be characterized as satanic, hate that reaches the point of killing one’s opponents! From this rabble of the athletic underworld, Your Excellency, you drew the terminology for your invitation to your apostatized former-followers, as would a manager of a football team. Similarly, we point out that it is not by chance that you yourself are a football fanatic! Since Papism doesn’t have the authentic and patristic spiritual means (because it abandoned and betrayed them) with which to speak to modern man, it uses what it has: street slang! Instead of the Church transforming the world, the world instead has devoured the western “Church”! Unfortunately, this is Papism – with no sign of spirituality, and remade according to the image and likeness of a football franchise!17
It is literally impossible to keep up with the total secularization of the Papist heresy. According to one report, it seems that some Papist “clergy” have strange ideas of how to approach the faithful and bring them to the Church. After one “priest” from Mexico sewed superheroes onto his vestments, serving “together” with Batman and Superman and distributing holy water with a water gun, another priest, this time from Italy, seems to have confused the altar area with a night club stage. In the video, which is (understandably) making its way around the world, the priest from Milan left bystanders at a wedding speechless as he merged the sacrament of marriage with the after-wedding party, placing a radio on the Holy Table and putting on his favorite song!18 Some, however, might say that these are merely isolated incidences and that they do not reflect Papism as a whole. They are unaware, then, that not once was a single objection raised by the “Holy See,” and not only for these incidents, but for all the others, which are coming to light on a daily basis! The decline of Papism is a foregone conclusion and there is only more to come.19
In the Papist parish of St. Anthony Abate in Messina on September 3rd, 2013, masses were performed using plastic and glass bowls and cups. Of course, this wasn’t the first (9) time something like this has happened. Lately during World Youth Day 2013 in Rio de Janeiro, plastic “communion chalices” were used!20
Wearing a cassock that has Superman and Batman on it, and brandishing a multicolored water pistol, the Papist “priest” Omberto is preparing for the customary Mass at the parish of Ojos de Agua in Coahuila, Mexico. Happy Children and their parents are filling the temple, anxiously waiting for the moment when the “priest” will soak them with holy water.
In addition, the fanciful idea of the Mexican “priest” is not only entertaining but also effective, since he has managed with this method to approach children and the younger members of the faithful. His revolutionary appearance causes at the very least interest, and as a result more and more people are attending his Masses21. The Papist “liturgical” revival continues with beer, assuages and songs.22
According to a report from the Greek website DOGMA, a Capuchin “monk” sings heavy metal! “At first glance, Cesare Bonizzi is a simple monk of the Capuchin order, with sandals, habit and a magnificent beard. The former missionary to the Ivory Coast lives near Milan and he is a fan and singer of heavy metal. It all started when he attended a Metallica concert fifteen years ago. Even if he is ‘religious,’ as he states, he wants to send a message to people, a message about life, its meaning and its enjoyment. As he himself has stated, he has never had a problem with his superiors. A sample of his musical output is acd with heavy metal songs dedicated to the Holy Virgin. At any rate, as most people assert, who understand the mission of a monk, heavy metal music can’t be considered as a monks ‘handicraft.’ It is a departure from the ascetical struggle and from prayer!” We simply have the following observations: a) that heavy metal music is used for the expression and propagation of Satanism; b) that the “heavy metal monk” speaks about “enjoyment of life,” which is unknown in Christian teaching; and c) that “he has never had a problem with his superiors,” and neither shall he, because the Vatican is not interested in such details as spirituality!23
Finally, Your Excellency, you accomplished the following unbelievable and yet true act – you revived the “indulgences” of the Middle Ages by way of the Internet! This time you are not selling them, but giving them away, through your Twitter account. This very strange news report was brought to light by the Greek website THE NEWS (TA NEA): “Pope Francis is giving away ‘indulgences’ to all who follow him on Twitter. In an effort to keep in step with modern times, the Vatican decided to marry one of its oldest traditions with the world of social networking, offering ‘indulgences’ to all who follow pope Francis on twitter during the Catholic World Youth Day. This privilege is given by the Vatican with just one click. This way the faithful secure less time in purgatory after they have also confessed their sins. According to a report in the British magazine The (10) Guardian, one may obtain ‘indulgences’ by participating in the Catholic World Day of Youth in Rio de Janeiro. Those who are unable to be present have the ability to follow the happening through the messages on the Pope’s Twitter account!” Your Excellency, place your hand on your heart and tell me truly: Is there even a chance that you are a “Church” and that we could somehow be united with you? On our part, we cannot see any change from the Papism of the Middle Ages24 which gave birth to the Inquisition, religious wars, the Crusades, Humanism, the Protestant Reformation, atheism and the de-Christianization of Europe.
III) THE RESIGNATION OF HIS EXCELLENCY, BENEDICT
The ink was barely dry on the dramatic announcement of the resignation of His Excellency, Benedict, and hardly had the tears dried on the faces when the first bomb was dropped, which, in all probability, was connected to his “quiet” resignation. In a report of special interest, which was brought to light by the Greek website “ΞΥΠΝΗΣΤΕ ΡΕ,” we read: “A German Pope abandons the Vatican and a German banker arrives. Ernstvon Freyberg, who is 54 years old, will take over the reigns of a bank with 6 billion Euros and 44,000 secret accounts, amongst which is the Pontiff’s own account. The taking over of the management of the Vatican Bank by the German banker is expected on 24th of May 2012, after his predecessor, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, was dismissed for wanting the finances of the Vatican to become more transparent. During this year the Bank was left without a head, a fact which inflated the rumors about the non-transparency of the Pope’s finances!” That is only a first answer to those who have rushed to have a look behind the “pure motives” of the resignation! So much for the “holy business” of the “Holy See,” of the “successors of St. Peter,” nor does this surprise us, because the Vatican is a State and not a “Church”!25
IV) THE ELECTION OF YOUR EXCELLENCY
Your election, Your Excellency, was not a chance event, for the World-Wide Centers of decision-making, seeing the financial rise of many of the countries of Latin America decided to promote your election as leader of the Vatican, in order to use your interventions for their own interests. That is the conclusion of an analysis of special scientists who are involved in the science of geo-politics and geo-strategy (chiefly the former). The analysts maintain that the “World-Wide Centers of Decision Making” designated your new role specifically to “renounce” the basic title of Leader of Vatican State, which bothers the faithful of other “Christian confessions,” and to accept the title of Bishop or of Patriarch of the West, even though you are outside of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (Orthodoxy) and to behave more as a spiritual father and less as the leader of the Vatican State. Nor was it happenstance that the General Secretary of the U.N., Ban Ki-moon, greeted you as “a world spiritual leader (23rd April).” This (11) happened at your meeting with him during which Your Excellency was asked by your country to do philanthropic work and to “approach people of different religions and non believers.”
This means that at the Vatican you will be working out a parallel scheme of communication and propaganda in order to carry out proselytization in the countries you will target.26 In one of Your Excellency’s efforts to prove that you are friendly towards Orthodoxy, you decided to celebrate your name day with your given name, which is George. On the 23rd of April 2013, the feast day of St. George (the Orthodox always celebrate this feast after Easter), you decided to celebrate and honor the martyred St. George the Trophy-Bearer. However, the Very Reverend Archimandrite Xaralambos Vassilopoulos, of blessed memory, in the prologue of his book, St. George the Trophy- Bearer, writes that Papism has removed St. George from the calendar of Saints, along with many other Saints of our Orthodox Church. This blessed founder of The Orthodox Press (Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος) newspaper and The Pan-Hellenic Orthodox Union, writes the following:
“In 1968 the Pope proceeded with an impious action which stunned the world and caused a storm of protest throughout all of Christendom. The Pope removed from the calendar of Saints the Great-Martyr St. George! With him he also erased thirty other Saints, such as Saint Nicholas, Saint Christopher, Saint Barbara, Saint Catherine etc. It seems that he was very bothered by the fact that the majority of these Saints are greatly reverenced by the Orthodox. It is these saints who are the most beloved of the Orthodox people. They are the chief Saints of Orthodoxy. Especially the Great-Martyr and Trophy-Bearer George, who is loved and honored by the whole of Orthodoxy. This sacrilegious and impious act on the part of the Pope deeply saddened every true Orthodox Christian. In fact many stated: ‘The most bloodthirsty and sadistic man in history, Diocletian, was unable to do away with St. George. However, along comes the Pope and he erases him from the catalogue of the Saints with the stroke of the pen!’ And then they tell us to reunite with the Pope! Since he doesn’t respect the Saints how will he respect Orthodoxy? Rather, it is not out of the question for this act to be the cause of the crisis of Papism, the reason why today the foundations of the all-powerful Vatican have been shaken. This act of the Pope, dear reader, saddened me as well, and is the reason why I wrote this life of the Holy Great-Martyr George. Here, in this booklet, you will read about the glorious career of the Saint, about his Christian faith, his frightful and painful Martyrdom, about the miracles that God performed in order to honor the heroism of the Saint in his Martyrdom, and the miracles that continue after his death until today. The life of Saint George will be of benefit and should be read by every Christian, especially those who bear his name. Finally, we the Orthodox all have a duty, since the Pope is trying to erase the memory of the Saint, to make more wildly known his life and miracles. There shouldn’t be an Orthodox house in existence without having the life of the Holy Great-Martyr and Trophy- Bearer George. After reading this book all will understand what a Saint the Pope erased!”27 (12)
If, Your Excellency, you desire to be different from your predecessors and to make some small steps towards Orthodoxy, let the first act be to restore Saint George and the others that are mentioned in the prologue of the book of the Very Reverend Archimandrite Xaralambos Vassilopoulos, of blessed memory, and to place your trust in them.28
V) YOUR EXCELLENCY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DICTATORSHIP OF ARGENTINA
The term “Jesuit,” which according to the Greek Professor of linguistics, G. Babiniotis, is synonymous with “hypocrite and tartuffe,” for the members of the undivided and unchanged Orthodox Catholic Church, concerns the Papist monastic order which was founded in 1543 by the Spaniard, Ignatius of Loyola, and the Basque, Francis Xavier, for the countering of the Reformation and the uprising of the people of Europe against the departures of papocesarism. In fact, this order is guilty of the savage polemics and insidious actions towards the martyric and Holy Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris, who was murdered in a horrific manner in 1638. St. Cyril Lucaris was an educated and able hierarch who struggled on behalf of the Church and the Greek people, a people whose historical continuation he saw intertwined with the undivided Orthodox faith. For this reason he fought with all his strength on behalf of the uncompromised and Apostolic, Gospel Truth. The eminent professor Eleni Koukou29 writes: “The preferential status quo of the Ottoman Empire towards France favored the appointing to the Orthodox East of a large number of French missionaries, chiefly Jesuits and Capuchins, whose main mission was, besides serving to promote French commerce and French political influence inside the Ottoman Empire, the proselytism, with whatever means necessary, of the ‘schismatic’ Greeks to Papism, especially through the promulgation of French culture and civilization.” The Senior (Ancient) Patriarchate of the West in old Rome, under toilsome captivity by the Franks and Germans, using the Jesuits as its tools, slandered, with every means available, the martyric Patriarch to the Clergy and the laity with unspeakable calumny, myths and lies, bribing the Ottomans and corrupting consciousnesses, until it managed to provoke the wrath of the High Porte against the Patriarch of the people, Cyril Lucaris, and to facilitate his atrocious murder, placing him, in this way, among the Martyrs of the undivided and unchanged Church.
On the 5th of March, 2013, in Buenos Aires, a very important trial began, which had as its objective to investigate all the crimes which were committed during the famous “Operation Condor,” whose goal was, with the help of the U.S.A., to establish Latin- American dictatorships, which included the extermination and murder of thousands of dissenters. Perfectly timely is an earlier and severe statement which was issued by the April,1975. (13) “Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo,” relatives of the thousands who disappeared during the Argentinean dictatorship, which accused “The Church” of being silent in the face of the crimes and even of taking an active part in the torturing of children. “Those who were involved, who told us lies, who turned their backs on us, was the Church of Bergoglio.” In the book, Church and Dictatorship: The Role of the Church Under the Light of Its Relationship With the Military Regime, which was published by M.K.O. CELS of Buenos Aires, reports that you, Your Excellency, the then Argentinean “Eparch” of the Societas Jesu, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and now Francis I, were directly connected with the abduction and torture of the Jesuit priests Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics by the military junta in May of 1976.
The famous newspaper The Los Angeles Times reports the same in an article published on April 1st, 2005, which contains the information that the Jesuit priest Orlando directly accused you, the then Eparch of the Order, Jorge Bergoglio, of literally handing him over to the Junta’s death squad, denying, before the Regime, protection to him and to the other Jesuit priest for their preaching in the ghettos of Buenos Aires. The same year the famous lawyer, Myriam Bergman, filed a lawsuit against you, the then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, with the charge of conspiring with the criminal Junta of the military commander Videla, a charge that was then repeated in 2010 by the survivors of the dirty war of the Argentinean military Junta, as was published in the newspaper El Mundo.
During the course of the trial which began after the lawsuit of Myriam Bergman, you, Cardinal Bergoglio, refused to appear in an open trial, and your answers, when they were finally given, were full of evasions and ambiguity.
The dictatorship of Argentina was “erected” by the then U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, with his deputy for Latin America, William Rodgers, who, as is gathered from the declassified U.S. National Security files which were released on the 23rd of March, 2006, had stated that in Argentina “there will be a lot of blood shed…” On March 24th, 1976, the CIA overturned the democratic government of Isabel Peron, using the General Videla, who was convicted to a life-sentence for crimes against humanity. They did this in the interest of Wall Street and with its support, and at the advice of Mr. David Rockefeller, who pressured the Argentinean Secretary of Economy, his close friend Josι Alfredo Martνnez de Hoz, to lead Argentina into recession, poverty and misery, surrendering the Central Bank and the monetary policy of the country into the hands of the “golden boys” of Wall Street and the IMF, keeping the national currency purposely undervalued and creating extremely high international debt, which led the national economy of Argentina, rich in raw materials, into bankruptcy. Mr. David Rockefeller is the well known founder of the museum of Tel Aviv that bears his name with its anti- Christian productions, which for the last two years were shown by the television channel “SKY” during Great and Holy Week, and of the famous Trilateral Commission, which is a communicating vessel of the equally well-known BilderbergGroup.
In 2006 the Argentinean reporter Horacio Verbitsky, in his book, The Silence, accused you, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and now Francis I, as a direct collaborator of the Junta of Videla, relying on the personal accounts of five Papist “clergy,” from whom you removed, as the then “bishop” Bergoglio of Buenos Aires and the Argentinean “eparch” of the “Society of Jesus,” the permission to perform missionary work in the Shanty towns (14) of Buenos Aires, thus providing the opportunity for Videla’s Junta to arrest them. The prominent human rights lawyer, Myriam Bregman, basing her work on the testimonies of the Jesuits Yorio and Jalics, supplies the significant information that, after torture sessions in the Junta’s prisons, the two Jesuits were thrown from a helicopter. They, however, lived to tell of the “accomplishments” and “charity” of the seemingly humanitarian, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Francis I.
The well-known newspaper of Buenos Aires, Pagina 12, circulated at the announcement of your election, a story with the title “΅Dios mνo!” (My God!) which records the witness of Gracielas Yorio, the sister of Orlando Yorio, who holds you, the then “Bishop of Buenos Aires,” Jorge Bergoglio, responsible for the abduction of her brother by the Junta. During the ESMA trial, the Argentinean Dictatorships largest torture center, you, the then chairman of the Argentinean Episcopal Conference, denied in writing that you knew about the murders and abductions. However your replacement sent the court a copy of a text which certifies that you, Bergoglio, deliberated together with the dictator Videla and three other “bishops” before the trial in order to work out a common plan of defense.30
The midday newspaper “Greece Tomorrow” from the 15th to the 17th of March, 2013, collapsed the Vatican’s propaganda regarding Your Excellency with a front-page theme, substantiated by photographs, documents and a many-page report, stating that you were a favorite of the CIA and of the anti-Greek Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, during the period of the decade of the 1970s, in which the dictatorship of General Jorge Videla was declared, and who in 1985 was sentenced to lifelong incarceration. You, Your Excellency, in your capacity as Cardinal of Argentina supported the military regime, as is reported by the above newspaper in their articles “The Dirty War” and “Cardinal Bergoglio.”
In 2010 the survivors of the junta’s “Dirty War” accused you as an accomplice in the kidnapping of two members of the Society of Jesus, which the newspaper “El Mundo” gave extensive publicity to in its pages on November 8th 2010. During the course of a trial, which began in 2005 for the investigation into the crimes of the Argentinean junta, you invoked the right which is given to you by Argentinean law and refused to appear in an open trial; and when you finally gave witness in 2010, your answers were, as we have already stated, full of evasions and ambiguity.
On April 1st 2005 the Los Angeles Times reported the following: “Bergoglio is implicated in at least two cases. One concerning the investigation into the torture of two Jesuit priests, Orlando Yario andFancisco Jalics, who where abducted in 1976 from the poor neighborhoods where they were preaching the theology of freedom. Yario accused Bergoglio that he literally handed them over to the death squad…denying to cover for them before the regime. Jalics has refused to speak about the subject, having cloistered himself in a German monastery”. Conveniently, a week after Your Excellency’s election, Mr. Jalics released a statement denying your involvement in the matter.
In general the Papist elite supported the military regime in Argentina. The Lawyer Myriam Bergman stated the following in relation to the April 1st, 2005, Los Angeles (15) Times article: “Bergoglio’s own statements proved that church dignitaries from the beginning knew that the junta was torturing and murdering its citizens, and in spite of all this they publicly supported the dictators. The dictatorship couldn’t have functioned in this way without this crucial support.” You were a conscientious supporter of the junta and man of the CIA, because you not only compromised Papism with the Argentinean junta, but also refused to follow the example of other Papist “bishops” who stood up to the juntas that were planted by the CIA and Wall Street in Latin America during that time. In contrast to your policy, after the outbreak of the Chilean coup d’ιtat on September 11th, 1973, against the government of Allende, the Cardinal of Santiago, Raϊl Silva Henrνquez, publicly condemned Pinochet’s junta. The critical stance of Papism in Chile against the junta of Pinochet played an important role in limiting the wave of political murders and human rights abuses. If you had followed the policy of Chilean Papism you could have saved the lives of many Argentinean dissidents.
The newspaper in its commentary claims that you, Your Excellency, “come as a protector of the Vatican against the Justice of Argentina and against the surviving victims of the Argentinean junta. In addition, your election has important geo-political repercussions for Latin America. In the decade of the seventies in Argentina, you were an essential supporter of the U.S. instigated junta, just as the Argentinean Secretary of Economy, Martνnez de Hoz, acted in the interest of Wall Street. Papism exercises great political influence in Latin America. This is a well-known fact to the architects of internal politics in the U.S., who methodically make use of you. Today, in Latin America, many governments doubt the leadership of the U.S.A. Given all of that, your election provides important possibilities to Washington, via the Vatican, to undermine and destabilize the political powers of the Latin American governments which are not pleasing to the White House. The progressive government of Cristina Kirschner in Argentina, along with governments of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, after the death of Chαvez and your election, can now be pressured more effectively in order to conform to the commands of the U.S. You are not Francis of Assisi, you are not the “Pope” of the poor, but the “Pope” of the economic elite, the “Pope” of a ruthless Washington establishment and, of course, the “Pope” of those with a fascist mindset.”31
Another scandal of the “City-State of God” came to the surface recently, namely the corrupt position of the Papists in Chile during the dictatorship of the bloodthirsty Pinochet. “The Vatican was attempting to downgrade the crimes, which were committed in Chile during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, characterizing them as ‘communist propaganda,’” according to American diplomatic documents which date from the 1970’s, and which were published by the website WikiLeaks. A telegram, which was sent to the American Embassy from the Holy See on the 18th of October, 1973, records a conversation that the then second-in-hierarchy in the Vatican, Giovanni Benelli, had with the then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, describing the concerns of Cardinal Benelli, as well as those of the Pontiff, before the successful international campaign of the Left, which presents a completely false view of the reality in Chile.”32 Again, this doesn’t surprise us at all, because the dirty “City-State of God” was in the embrace of all the (16) despotic and fascist regimes of the 20th century, because they were bound by common interests. Let us not forget how all the Nazi and fascist criminals, after the 2nd World War, found refuge in the dark halls of the Vatican and from there were helped by the “fathers” to escape to Latin America! A classic example was the war criminal Ante Pavelić, who murdered along with the Croatian Ustaša 800,000 Serbian Orthodox under the command of the false saint, Aloysius Stepinac. “The tragedy is that some actually call this thing a “Church” and further, one of its “two lungs”!33
VI) THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL (1965)
These days the “Robber Synod” of Vatican II (1962-1965), which modernized and developed in our times the heresies and false doctrines of the fallen Patriarch of the West – with its four Constitutions, nine Decrees and three Declarations, and altogether secularized Papism – is presented as a so-called spiritual “springboard” for the comprehension of the modern world and as a so-called expression of the consciousness of the Church.
The above fact, however, withholds the reality that the Truth is neither an ideology, nor a subjective approach, nor a matter of supremacy in numbers, but an incarnate reality, which is given existence in the person of the perfect God and perfect man, Jesus Christ, and therefore renders self-evident the fact that even one person together with the Truthperson, Christ, make up the majority, even if the opposition is made up of many thousands, as is the case with the parasynagogue of Papism and the “Robber Synod” of Vatican II, with its 2,500 participants. In addition, we are found to be “in council” only when we are found within the Orthodox Church, communing with the person of Christ, because “Christ is the way and the life,” as the Orthodox Church chants, and as Christ Himself trumpeted-forth “I am the way and the truth and the life.”34
Thus, we are found “on the way” only when we have communion with the Truth, who is Christ, and not when we have communion with heresy, who is the devil35.
We know well, Your Excellency, that you are dedicated to the decisions of the Second Vatican Council (1965), which aims at the improvement of the relations between Papism and the other Christian “churches,” as well as other religions. What, however, is the Second Vatican Council, which laid the foundation for the union of Papism with, in particular, the Orthodox, and which has Ecumenism as its vanguard? We shall allow the modern Saint and Elder of our sister Serbian Orthodox Church, the professor of Dogmatics and Ecumenical Teacher, Justin Popović, to describe it for us through his writings. (17)
“Here, says the ever-memorable one, we have a crucial dilemma and choice: either the God-man or Man! Before us we have an offspring of the Devil, which is called European Humanism. The peak of this diabolical humanism is the desire to become good through evil, to become god through the Devil. The Second Vatican Council comprises a rebirth of all of European Humanism, a rebirth of a corpse. Because, from the moment that the God-man Christ is present in the terrestrial world, all of Humanism is a corpse. The dogma of man’s (Papal) Infallibility itself is nothing less than the hair-raising funeral of all Humanism, from the Vatican, which raised it to a dogma, to the satanic Humanism of Sarte. Within the Humanistic pantheon of Europe all the gods are dead, with the European Zeus (the Pope) at their head.
“The foundation of all Humanism, even that of the Vatican, is pride, the faith in man’s reason and intellect. All Humanism returns man to idolatry, to a two-fold death, spiritual and physical. As Humanism distances itself from the God-man it is slowly transformed into nihilism. In this way, in the European West, Christianity was gradually changed into Humanism. Slowly and persistently over a long period of time, they lessened the God-man and in the end diminished him into a man, into the infallible man of Rome and into the no-less infallible man of Berlin. With this change there appeared, on the one hand, Western Christian/Humanism Maximalism (Papism) and on the other hand Western Christian/Humanism Minimalism (Protestantism), which seek a minimum from Christ, and oftentimes nothing at all. In both cases Man is placed in the place of Christ as that which is of the highest value and that which is the ultimate criteria, the result of which is the transformation of Western Christianity into Humanism. This replacement of the God-man with man was manifestly shown in the obvious replacement of the Christian God-man methodology with humanistic methodology.
“Here is the wellspring of the Aristotelian philosophical primacy in scholasticism, the casuist method and the Inquisition in ethics, the Papist diplomacy in international relations, the Papal State etc. What naturally follows is that now, in Europe, they are contemplating replacing humanistic Christianity with the ancient polytheistic religion, something that has already begun.
“In a wider historical context, the western dogma of infallibility is nothing other than an attempt to revive and perpetuate dying European humanism and by extension the civilization itself. Every effort and attempt to equate Christianity with the spirit of this present age, with the transient movements of some other age in history and, in addition, with various political parties or regimes, removes from Christianity that specific worth, which renders it the world’s sole religion of the God-man.
“Satan wars against Christ through many and various people: through Herod, and Nero, but even more dreadfully through Arius. Coming out of the god-murdering and self-destroying Judas, Satan entered into Arius! What in fact is Arianism? From where does it originate? Its metaphysical side is rooted in Satanism while the psychological in rationalism. It is an attempt to replace the Christian Laws of the Holy Spirit with the rationalistic laws (the categories) of Aristotelian logic. Newman was correct when he wrote: ‘Aristotle was the bishop of the Arians!’ (The (18) Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 31). Every heresy is an offspring of the Devil. Saint Athanasius underlines this emphatically: ‘The Devil is the creator of heresies.’
“Arianism has not been buried yet. Today it is more in fashion then ever before and has been propagated more than in any other age. It has been propagated as the soul of the body that is modern Europe. If one looks into European culture they will find Arianism hidden in its depths.
“With the ‘leaven’ of Arianism all European philosophy has been leavened along with its science, civilization and, in part, its religion. Both Papism and Protestantism have managed to poison the masses of Europe with vulgar Arianism. Arianism, like a chameleon, can change externally, in its essence however it is always the same.
“With much pain and agony the race of man has forged for itself a supreme divinity, which it worships as that which is of the highest worth and standard. This supreme divinity is summed up thus: “Man is the measure of all things.” All of European Humanism, from the most primitive to the most noble and refined, from basest fetishes to Papism, all are based on faith in man, as he is in his given psychophysical empirical condition and historicity. In this way idolatrous humanism and, above all, Greek humanism was elevated to dogma. The value, the criteria of Greek culture, of Greek civilization, poetry, philosophy, art, and political science has been raised to dogma: “Man is the measure of all things!” And what does all of this mean? It means the elevation of idolatry to dogma! For this reason, in the final analysis, all of Humanism has idolatrous and polytheistic origins. All of the Humanism of European man is, in essence, nothing other that an incessant rebellion against the God-man Christ.
“Everywhere man replaces the God-man. The man of European humanism has taken his place on every European throne. However, outside of the God-man, man does not exist – only as subhuman, half-human or non-human. Without the Godman, man is in danger of being reduced to a devil-like creature, because sin is simultaneously the power and image of the devil. Humanistic anthropocentrism is, in its essence, devil-centrism, because both seek the same thing: to belong to themselves, for themselves.
“And so it is only natural and logical that, in such a world that ‘lieth in wickedness,’ there can exist no kind of compromise in a man who follows the God-man! Our Orthodox Church does not change its faith nor does it change the means with which it fights every form of Arianism. And as it defeated the old Arianism, so it defeats every form of new Arianism, including its modern European form.”36
VII) YOUR EMININCE’S RELATIONS WITH ISLAM
(19) The Second Vatican Council gave a great thrust in inter-religious “understanding” or, better yet, pan-religious union. The Council writes about the relations of Papism with non-Christian communities in the Declaration Nostra Aetate, which desires to promote dialogue and cooperation between the large world religions for causes of justice and world peace: “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, (5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly even to His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the Day of Judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”37
You, Your Excellency, invite Christians and Muslims to behave with mutual respect and to strengthen mutual understanding through education and the upbringing of the younger generations. You congratulated “your brother Muslims” at the conclusion of the holy month of Ramadan, which is dedicated to fasting, prayer and charitable acts. You also sent greetings to Muslims worldwide during a Sunday blessing of pilgrims that gathered in Saint Peter’s Square in Rome.38
You, Your Excellency, called on the West to intensify the dialogue with Islam and set as your priority the fighting of poverty and the protection of the environment. You stated that you intend to “strengthen the dialogue with Islam” and unbelievers, and to “build bridges,” underlining the meaning of the word “Pontiff,” which in Latin means “bridgebuilder,” or more specifically, “he who builds bridges between God and man.” You said: “Hence it is important to intensify dialogue among the various religions, and I am thinking particularly of dialogue with Islam,” stating that you felt thankful that so many Muslim religious and civilian leaders attended your inaugural Mass.39
In June of 2012 Egyptian television presented to the world-wide community a frightful, atrocious and tragic video of the decapitation by knife of a young and anonymous Tunisian Christian new-martyr at the hands of fanatic hooded Islamists, who manically read verses from the Quran, while committing their outrageous crime.40 This atrocious event took place in the otherwise cosmopolitan Tunisia, which the so-called Democratic powers of the West, the U.S.A., England, France, and the rest, took pains to hand over into the embrace of Islamic fundamentalists, who under the pretext of the self-styled “Arab Spring,” are undertaking the re-establishment of the Caliphate.
Besides, the same unrepentant practice is demonstrated by the particular directors of (20) internationalism in the case of much suffering Syria, where it is diligently concealed that there is being waged an Indo-Islamic religious war between the Alevi, who rule and who belong to the moderate Shia Islam, and the extremist Sunni, which make up the majority in the country, and who are being generously armed by the Sunni establishment of the Arab League and the internationalist establishment of the West, with the obvious goal of incorporating Syria into the “beloved” Caliphate.
Which raises the question: are these anthropomorphic monsters, who commit these crimes, responsible for these atrocities? The simple-minded answer “yes” thoroughly distorts the truth. The truth is that their religious confession, manufactured by hate and evil, is responsible for the beastly perversion of these people. Quranic witnesses such as this are what have inspired them throughout history, and which inspire them today41: “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush.” And in thisSura we read:42 “So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either confer favor afterwards or ransom them until the war lays down its burdens. That is the command. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them Himself, but He ordered armed struggle to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah never will He waste their deeds. He will guide them and amend their condition, and admit them to Paradise, which He has made known to them. O you who have believed, if you support Allah, He will support you and plant firmly your feet.”43 And in this Sura:44 “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers).” And thus, those who with passion read these fearful perversions, come to believe that in this way the All-Holy God is, allegedly, pleased, He who from endless love created the universe from nothing. Blinded by the falsehood of their religious system, whose goal is the domination and conquest of all peoples by fire and steel, these wretched ones do not see the beauty of the world, the sweetness of the flowers, the phenomenal splendor of the systems of galaxies, the exquisite expression of harmony of the oceans, the forests, the rivers, of creation in general. It is terribly tragic that they believe that the Creator of all this beauty, the God of the Promise to Abraham, who did not want Isaac as a sacrifice, but replaced him with a ram, would demand and be pleased to accept the slaughter of young men. Of course, in our martyric country of Greece, we owe our Orthodox and Hellenic self-consciousness to the thousands of young boys and girls, who during the five black and endless centuries of Islamic slavery, where slaughtered for their faith in Christ and strengthened the flame of freedom.
The critical question, which unfortunate Islam is unable to answer is the following: Who speaks the truth? Is it Jesus Christ, the God-Man, Who was born into the world above nature – that is, through the Spirit of God and not according to the natural way of humans, as is completely accepted and preached even by Muhammad in his Quran – (21) whose ministry is the completion and fulfillment of Revelation, which was given by God to the Prophets of the Old Testament, whose Word and Resurrection was handed over in all truth by those who gave their lives and were martyred for the truth? Or is it a mere common man, the Arab merchant Muhammad, the son of Abdullah and Aminah bint Wahb, who lived six hundred years after Jesus Christ, and who was born, as all humans are, according to nature, and who is totally and essentially refuted by all of the substance of God’s revelation through His prophets and through His incarnate, crucified and risen Son, our Lord Jesus Christ? No one prophesied the coming of Muhammad, his assertion in the Sura of the Quran45 – “And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad,’” – notwithstanding. As well, the opinion of Muslim scholars that the Gospel verse46 – “Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you” – allegedly contained the word “περικλυτός” – which means glorious or illustrious one, and is a synonym with the Arabic word “Achmed,” – instead of “Παράκλητος,” is completely unworthy of refutation. These assertions run contrary to six centuries of Christian faith, Ecumenical Councils, theology, church writings, pan-Christian belief and science and, of course, common logic, because it is completely unthinkable that God would have waited six full centuries from the supernatural incarnation, work and presence of the Messiah and his ascension into the heavens until the appearance of the socalled “revelation” of the Quran, to send the supposed seal of all the prophets, namely the mere man Muhammed. On the contrary, the true “Παράκλητος,” the third person of the Holy Trinity, the All-Holy Spirit, descended on the disciples and Apostles of Christ fifty days after His Resurrection and ten days after His Ascension, founding His Church, which is His Body, with Him as the Head, giving strength to His frightened and hiding disciples, in order to spread to all the world the Gospel of the adoption of mankind by God the Father, enabling the Apostles to be indifferent to their own personal fate, to fearful tortures, and finally to their martyric and painful death, which would be their “reward” for all this spiritual struggle.
When it is also taken into account that Muhammed, as seen in the aforementioned citations, imposed his religion by violence, death and power, – something which is also manifestly proved today; and, most importantly, if the so-called revelations were true, which were given to him by a being who appeared to him as the Archangel Gabriel; then God would have had to be out of His mind, since He proclaimed and revealed for six centuries one thing to the race of man and six hundred years after His final revelation He changed His mind and radically altered that which He had made known about Himself. Since, however, this is blasphemy and an insult against the true God, Who is pure truth, pure love, and omniscient – as the magnificent universe, “the work of His hands,” bears witness, with all the mathematical precision of its billion star systems –,it is completely impossible for this to have happened. The only conclusion, which is easily drawn, is that Muhammed, a mere man, fashioned his religious system, six hundred years after the completion of Divine Revelation, on his own initiative, and from his own thought and understanding. He created a religious system consisting of ancient Arabic religious (22) beliefs along with Jewish and Christian ideas that he used to unite the Arabic tribes of his time, and to create his own theocratic and royal regime, seizing power and creating an empire. From the aforementioned we see that Islam is made up of deep delusion, and its religious belief system is not a revelation of the living God, but rather a creation of human passions, a continuation of the hideous heresy of Arius, which has no relation with the truth revealed in the Old Testament, the truth of the one and only Tri-hypostatic God and Creator of the universe, Who was revealed to the patriarchs of the Hebrew race Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and especially to the prophet Moses, and Who according to the New Testament brought to completion the revelation by His incarnate Word, Who united without confusion, change, division or separation the Divine and the human natures in the one hypostasis of the Lord Jesus Christ, perfect God and perfect man, to the fulfillment of the prophesies throughout the ages concerning the salvation of the world. Therefore, regardless of how many martyrs of Christ they will decapitate, as pawns of the Devil they will never be able to detract from or obscure the truth of the one and only God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.47
VIII) YOUR EXCELLENCY’S RELATIONS WITH JUDAISM
The Decree “Unitatis Redintegratio” of the Second Vatican Council opens the doors to cooperation and dialogue with other religions, especially with Judaism, in spite of the ardent opposition of a minority at the Council.48 In the fourth phase of the Council in 1965, a vote was taken for the statements relating to freedom of conscience and religious freedom, in addition to that concerning relations with other religions, chiefly with Judaism. These provoked intense debate, because they overturned very old and deeply rooted mindsets within the “Church.” Specifically, the Council sought to change the negative and hostile stance of Papism towards the Jews.49
You, Your Excellency, are devoted to the decisions of the Second Vatican Council (1965), which aims at the improvement of the relations between Papism and Jews. This is evident by your statements. According to the website pentapostagma.gr on March 26, 2013, you, Your Excellency, “exhort the members of all religions and all the people that belong to a ‘church’ to unite to defend justice, peace and the environment.” “I am very moved and feel great optimism and hope,” stated rabbi David Rosen, from Jerusalem, director of inter-religious relations for the American Jewish Committee. “He is deeply dedicated to Catholic-Judaic relations,” said Rosen, who was present at the meeting. Yahya Pallavicini, leader of the Italian Muslim community, said that he was impressed by your persistence in the promotion of inter-religious friendship. You met with Christian leaders of the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists and also of other religions such as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus. To the religious leaders at the Vatican you (23) stated, “The Catholic Church has awareness of the importance of the promotion of amity between men and women of different religious traditions.” Speaking in Italian in SalaClementina, you said that “members of all religions, even the non-believers, should recognize the common responsibility they share in the world, in all of creation, which we should love and protect.”50
The Jewish communities of Argentina were “thrilled” with your election, Your Excellency. Rabbi David Rosen of the AJC told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that you are a “warm, sweet and modest man,” and it is known in Buenos Aires that you cooked for yourself and answered your own telephone. And of course photographs were provided showing you, as archbishop of Buenos Aires, observing the service of Rosh Hashanah in the Benei Tikva Slijot Synagogue in September of 2007. We have no doubts that you would be pleasing to world-wide Judaism, since it is known that the former two popes had “inaugurated,” not simply a “truce” with the synagogue, but “hand-in-hand” collaboration! We remind you of the act of restoration of the name Judah and of the act of exoneration of the Jewish people for the crucifixion of Christ, which was performed by His former Excellency, Benedict XVI, while Judaism now and throughout time with the satanic Kabbalah and the demonic Talmud crucify daily the Savior of the world! Who, then, could believe that you were chosen by the Holy Spirit and not by the powerful ones of this world?51
Your own affinity, Your Excellency, for the Jews is a known fact. The celebration of all of the Jews of the world on your election, of their chosen “pope,” was made complete by a new incident, which caused a significant stir when it was published. The Jewish website “The Jewish Daily Forward” made known, Your Excellency, how your favorite painting is the “White Crucifixion” of the “Jewish Jesus”. The painting, by the Jewish artist Marc Chagall, is on display at the Art Institute of Chicago. The “crucifix” in the painting is nailed to a “cross” in the form of a T. Instead of the familiar loincloth he is wearing a Jewish prayer shawl. Below the “cross” is burning the menorah. On the right of the “crucifix” is shown a synagogue on fire and to its left the “torah”. Those who know about art affirm that this specific painting does not depict the Crucified Christ of the Christian faith, but “crucified Judaism”! Yet another blasphemous work, perverting the true message of the crucifixion. Of course, the Jews, on their part, are busy at their “work,” the work they have been doing for two thousand years now, to demolish faith in Christ. The question of significance is: how can a “Christian Pope” have such an artistic monstrosity as his preference?52
You stated many things during Your Excellency’s first interview in the Italian newspaper “La Repubblica,” all without substance or trace of spirituality. However, you did make some statements that reveal your total lack of ecclesiastical conscience, as was uploaded by the website enikos.gr: “The main issue, for those who do not believe in God, is to obey their own conscience.” You are unaware, then, that, as a rule, the conscience is corrupted by sin and the passions and cannot replace the faith? “Christians do not possess the truth from the moment that it is given to them by God and for this reason they should (24)constantly seek the renewal of this gift.” You are unaware, then, that God’s truth is found in the Orthodox Church, and the faithful become communicants of this truth as members of the Church? “Through the terrible trials of these past centuries, the Jews have kept their faith in God. And for this, we will never be grateful enough to them, as the Church, but also as humanity at large.” We ask Your Excellency: At what point in time did the Church become grateful for the fact that the heterodox Jews preserved a faith that vehemently denies the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ? You also said many other similar things. We believe, however, that even this small sampling of your own words clearly shows the complete absence of an ecclesiastical conscience on your part. You who are presented as the “Vicar of Christ on Earth” and “First of the Church”!53
Can it really be possible, we ask, that you are also not aware as the “Christian Pope” that the hideous Global Zionism,54 which was condemned as extremely racist by the U.N. (when the U.N. was truly free) changed the theism of the Old Testament and the Prophets into shameful Satanism, with the demonic Kabbalah and the vulgar Talmud, work of the demonized Rabbis of fallen Judaism and of their ideals regarding world wide government and domination, through the still awaited false messiah, namely Antichrist?55
IX) YOUR EXCELLENCY’S RELATIONS WITH FREEMASONRY
We wonder if there still exist those who maintain that Your Excellency was chosen by the Holy Spirit, in light of the wave of revelations concerning what was going on behind the scenes during your election.56If they exist, let them take a look at the website of the “Grand Orient of Italy” (Grande Oriente d’Italia or GOI) and perhaps they will change their minds.
Along with the Jews, Your Excellency is a favorite of the Freemasons, who, according to their own publications, were anxiously awaiting your election and rejoiced when you were chosen! In a statement by the “Grand Master,” G. Raffi, he stresses that, “With Pope Francis, nothing will be as it was before. It is a clear choice of fraternity for a Church of dialogue, which is not contaminated by the logic and temptations of temporal power. He is a man of the poor, far away from the Curia. Fraternity and the desire to dialogue were his first concrete words. Perhaps nothing in the Church will be as it was before. The simple cross he wore on his white cassock lets us hope that a Church of the people will re-discover its capacity to dialogue with all men of good will and with Freemasonry, which, as the experience of Latin America teaches us, works for the good and progress of humanity!” So here is the heart of the matter: “dialogue with all men of (25) good will,” which means an intensifying of ecumenism!57
Are you not aware, Your Excellency, that Freemasonry promotes, through Ecumenism, the universal religion of Lucifer, as well as the fact that the source and womb of Freemasonry is the hideous International Zionism? From Freemasonry’s own texts it is established that they accept and believe in a divinity, which they call “The Great Architect of the Universe” (G.A.O.T.U.). They have, of course, rites analogous with those of the Church (“mysteries” or “sacraments” for example: marriage, altars, temples, symbols, funerals, consecrations) with a specific typicon of rites. In the Masonic texts G.A.O.T.U. is know by the names: Lucifer, Devil, Satan, Beelzebul, Belial, Baphomet, Demon, etc. Freemasonry’s own ideas about its beliefs and confessions are clear.58 In the Charter of the Grand Lodge of Greece (12-20-1949) it is clearly stated: “Freemasonry believes in the existence of God under the cognomen ‘Great Architect of the Universe’.” In the Masonic encyclopedia of N. X. Lascaris, published with the permission of the Grand Lodge of Greece, in the entry “Religion and Masonry,” we read: “The Masonic religion does not make distinctions. It accepts in its hospitable embrace men of all dogmas; it neither completely prefers nor shuns any particular religious dogma… The religion of Freemasonry is a universal religion of nature and of primeval revelation, with which we were bequeathed by an ancient one and the patriarchal priesthood, in which all men are able to co-exist.” Undisguised are the Syncretism and idolatry of Freemasonry, but also its anti-Christian character, something that is clear from its claim at universality, which is in direct conflict with the catholicity and ecumenicity of the Christian Faith and Church. This was underlined in the historic decision of the Church of Greece in 193359, according to which Freemasonry “is not a simple philanthropic organization or philosophic school, but it forms a mystagogic system, and so reminds us of the ancient ethnic mystery religions and cults. It is proven to be a mystery cult, completely different… and foreign to the Christian religion… it seeks to include… in its embrace all of humankind… it raises up itself to a kind of super religion.”60 In addition, Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, of blessed memory, an enlightened spiritual father and eminent theologian, stresses that Freemasonry “aspires to become the religion of all mankind… to become a super religion.”61
Freemasonry is “pagan cult worship, an adversary of the pure Orthodox Catholic Church.” That is to say, it is clearly an antichristian and pagan religion. The Masons are “Satan worshipers and luciferists, followers of the religion of Antichrist.”62 We also ascertain that the Freemasons, at least those in the higher degrees, are Satan worshipers, (26) praying to Lucifer as Baphomet, as they call their goat-headed god. Moreover, their association with magic cannot be denied. Paul Naudon, a scholar in the history of their law and a Freemason himself, informs us that certain rites have as their goal “the practice of magic, which comes to the service of man giving him influence over the world.”63 The claim by Freemasons that they do not occupy themselves with nor interfere in political matters and developments is untrue. The religious character of Freemasonry, which also functions expansively and universally, walks hand in hand with active involvement in international political affairs. Its political involvement foresees the exercise of influence on politicians in order to guide international political developments. It is by no means a philanthropic organization, as they allege, which has as its goal the prevalence in society of morals and ethics. The scandal involving the Italian Lodge P2 in 1981 is one of the most significant confirmations of Freemasonry’s relationship with political intrigues.64
X) YOUR EXCELLENCY’S RELATIONS WITH ATHEISM
The news from the “Christian” West is dramatic. Unfortunately, the “prophet” of western man, Nietzsche, is constantly confirmed: “God is dead,” neither shall there remain a trace of His memory. “Christianity” of the West, having managed to get rid of Christ, with Papism and Protestantism, is now trying to get rid of faith in God. Behold the evidence!
Firstly, on the 23rd of May, 2013, you made an historic outreach to Atheists. “Atheists should be seen as good people if they do good,” Your Excellency stated, in a call for cooperation among all people, regardless of their religious beliefs. Speaking to atheists you underlined the meaning of “doing good” as a principle, which unites all of mankind. You related the story of a Papist, who once asked a priest if Jesus redeemed even atheists. “Even them, everyone,” was the answer given, according to Vatican radio. If someone told you that he was an atheist you would tell him: “We all have the duty to do good. Just do good and we’ll find a meeting point.” Your addressing yourself to the atheists is in direct contrast with the attitude and views of His former Excellency, Benedict XVI, who many times caused non-Papists to feel like, as they put it, second-class believers.65
Secondly, pastors of different heretical protestant denominations confess that they are atheists! The Methodist pastor Keith Jenkins stated that the faithful now look to their pastors as “super heroes.” He recognized also that there are many pastors that pass a crisis of personal faith and end up as atheists. The strange thing with these heresies is the existence of a website clergyproject.com, with pastors and other clergy as members, who no longer believe in God. This group, launched on March 21st, 2011, states that it already has more than 556 members. Some of these pastors continue to preach, keeping their(27) atheism a secret.66
These phenomena show us that the spiritual thirst of man, through the adulteration of faith and the non-existence of liturgical and spiritual life, leads to atheism as another option! This disturbing news is not at all unrelated to the Vatican’s “reaching out” to atheists, with whom you are content to have a dialogue, provided they are “good people”. It is not by chance that in recent years even atheists have been invited to Assisi for common prayer! The hair-raising conclusion: Christianity in the West no longer exists, only idolatry in the guise of Christianity!
XI) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ONE WORLD RELIGION
You, Your Excellency, on Great and Holy Thursday of this past Papist “Easter,” visited one of Rome’s juvenile detention centers and washed the feet of twelve young men and women, who according to the “Holy See” represented the twelve Apostles. So far so good. However, one of the young women who was “portraying” the Apostles was a Muslim! Chance? We think not! “Each of the twelve young men and women, who had their feet washed by the ‘Pope,’ were chosen to represent the different nationalities and religions of the inmates of the detention center. Among them were Orthodox Christians and Muslims.”67
It is evident that you faithfully follow the policy of your predecessors regarding the promotion of the Vatican’s inter-religious “outreach.” Let those who believed that you would bring “fresh air” to the Vatican not be quick to rejoice. You will faithfully serve the Vatican’s ambitions for world domination in order to subject all religions under your papal slippers, and to bring about your appointment as the global religious and spiritual leader. This is the explanation for why a Muslim inmate, portraying an Apostle of Christ, was brought before you.68
You, Your Excellency, have not ceased from the moment of your election to speak in glowing terms about all the religions of the world, and to call them to collaborate for “the good of mankind”. Immediately after your election you exhorted the members of all religions, as well as those who do not belong to a religious group, to join together in order to defend justice, peace and the environment. As we have noted earlier, behold the reactions: “I am very moved and feel great optimism and hope,” stated rabbi David Rosen, from Jerusalem, director of interreligious relations for the American Jewish Committee. “He is deeply dedicated to Catholic-Judaic relations,” said Rosen. Yahya Pallavicini, leader of the Italian Muslim community, said that he was impressed by your persistence in the promotion of interreligious friendship. You met with Christian leaders of the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists and of other religions such as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus. “The Catholic Church has awareness of the importance of the promotion of amity between men and women of different religious (28) traditions,” you stated characteristically. It is obvious why you decided to lead the effort in uniting the religions of the world, believing that you can become their leader! The “Holy See” is leading the way in the creation of a one-world religion, supposedly for the good of the world. In essence, however, it will be for its devastation.69
Another one of your actions is making a sensation these days, Your Excellency. On your election you chose the mask of simplicity, obviously in order to seem different from your predecessors, shedding many of the emblems with which the centuries had encumbered you. These decisions of yours are praiseworthy. However, among other choices, you refused the valuable gold cross of your predecessors and preferred to wear a simple iron cross. Nevertheless, the representation on the cross is not, as it should be, the crucified Christ, but a depiction, unknown in the history of ecclesiastical art, of the “good shepherd,” who amazingly resembles an ancient depiction of a young pharaoh! In addition, in the upper portion of the cross there is an image of a bird, evidently the Holy Spirit. However, a similar bird is also portrayed in the upper portion of the ancient Egyptian representation! A Spanish web manager of a “catholic” website was the first to highlight the subject, connecting it with the young pharaoh, and also with the other symbol of the Egyptian religion, the bird.70 We do not know whether the depiction on your cross has any relation to the Vatican’s “outreach” to all religions (even paganism and atheism), however, its pan-religious orientation strongly suggests something of this nature.71
Finally, you requested, Your Excellency, that the followers of all religions follow the lead of the Papist “Church” by praying to their “gods” to avoid an invasion of Syria by the Western “vultures”. According to the report, “The ‘Pope,’ speaking to tens of thousands of people in Saint Peter’s Square, declared September 7th as a day of prayer and fasting for peace in Syria and all of the Middle East. He also condemned the use of chemical weapons, something that the West accuses the Syrian government’s military of using. Coming out against any kind of armed intervention in Syria he stressed, ‘no more war.’ The ‘Pontiff’ petitioned the worlds 1.2 billion Papists to pray for peace in Syria on September 7th and stressed that he himself would be present at a special liturgy to be held at the Vatican. The ‘Pope’ also asked of all the world’s Christians, and even members of other religions, to follow the lead of the Vatican on September 7th”.72 That is why you invite to Assisi every year the representatives of all the religions to pray commonly in a pan-religious “divine mosaic,” because you believe in the existence of other “gods” besides the Triune God! And something else which is very important: Because you do not believe in the effectiveness of the Triune God, in order to avoid an invasion, you solicit the intervention of other “gods” by way of their religions!73
XII) THE PROMOTION OF THE PAN-HERESY OF ECUMENISM
(29) It is known, Your Excellency, that, in order to promote your Papist ecumenism, you employ the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, specifically the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) and the later Papal encyclical of 1995, “Pope” John Paul II’s “That they may be one” (Ut unum sint). This lengthy Papal encyclical is divided into three basic chapters with an introduction and an epilogue of exhortation. The first chapter mentions the ecumenical responsibility of Papism (L’engagement oecumιnique de l’ Eglise catholique). The second chapter evaluates the fruits of the bilateral and multilateral theological dialogues of the modern Ecumenical movement (Les fruits du Dialogue). The third chapter seeks a more effective course of dialogue in order to hasten the restoration of ecclesiastical communion between the Christian “churches” (Quanta est nobis via). All three of the chapters very frequently utilize the relative decisions of the recent Second Vatican Council, and more specifically the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), the related codified instructions of the Papal “Guide for Ecumenism” (Directoire… sur l’ oecumenisme), the relative Papal encyclicals, etc.74
For us Orthodox, Your Excellency, Ecumenism has been condemned as a pan-heresy by the aforementioned Blessed and Venerable and God-bearing Father Saint Justin Popović, who, in his excellent work,The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, notes, “Ecumenism is a common name for the false Christianities of the false churches of Western Europe. Within it is found the heart of European Humanism withPapism as its head. All of these false Christianities and false churches are nothing other than one heresy next to the other. Their common evangelical name is pan-heresy.”75
The womb and source of Ecumenism just happens to be Freemasonry, which promotes through it the universal religion of Lucifer; and the womb and source of Freemasonry is International Zionism,76 which changed the theism of the Old Testament and the Prophets into shameful Luciferism with the demonic Kabbalah and the vulgar Talmud, work of the demonized Rabbis of fallen Judaism and of their ideals regarding world wide government and domination, through the still-awaited false messiah, namely Antichrist.
Ecumenism operates on two levels: the inter-Christian and the inter-religious, which constitute two of the central agendas of Ecumenism. Inter-Christian ecumenism promotes the union of the various Christian heresies (Papism, Protestantism, Monophysitism, etc.) with the Catholic Orthodox Church, using dogmatic minimalism as the criterion.
According to the ecumenist principle of “inter-Christian dogmatic syncretism,” the dogmatic differences between the heretics and the Orthodox Church are simply “particular traditions,” and should be by-passed for the good of the unity of the “Church,” (30) which can express itself with diverse and varied formulations and views. On the other hand, inter-religious ecumenism, reckoning that in all the religions there exist positive elements, promotes the union of all religions and especially of the three so-called monotheistic religions of the world, namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism. In this way it contributes to the development of a so-called “One World Religion.” In accordance with the ecumenist principle of “inter-religious syncretism,” the so-called “common theological ground,” which exists in all the “monotheistic religions” should be highlighted in order to establish universal religious unity.
Ecumenism, in order to materialize its goals, invents diverse theories, such as the false doctrines of The Expanding Church, Sister Churches, Baptismal theology, The Universal Invisible Church, The Branch Theory, Two-Lung Theory, dogmatic minimalism and maximalism, meta-patristic theology, neo-patristic theology, contextual heresy, Eucharistic theology, post-holy-council theology, deficient and incomplete “Churches,” all-inclusiveness, deficient and incomplete mysteriology, the changing of economy into exactness (ἀκρίβεια) and dogma, all of which, of course, are completely foreign and strange to Orthodox dogmatic teaching and theology.77
Ecumenism promotes the modern, pretentious, and methodical ecumenical dialogues, which are dominated by a lack of orthodox confession; a lack of honesty on the part of the heterodox; an exaggerated emphasis on “love” and a de-emphasis of truth; the concealment and distortion of Biblical verses and especially of the Scriptural phrase “that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:11); the practice of refusing to discuss that which divides but only that which unites; the dulling of orthodox criteria; the mutual recognition of “church” status, apostolic succession, priesthood, Grace and mysteries (sacraments); dialogue on equal terms; the pardoning, exoneration and rewarding of the accursed and demonic Unia, the Trojan Horse of Papism; participation in the thoroughly Protestant, self-styled “World Council of Churches” (or rather “of Heresies”); by the signing of joint heterodox declarations, statements and texts without synodal conduct or decision (e.g. Lima, Peru 1982, Balamand, Lebanon 1993, Chambesy, Switzerland 1994, Porto Alegre, Brazil 2006, Ravenna, Italy 2007 etc.); and common prayer.78
Ecumenism adopts and legitimizes all heresies as “churches,” and it insults the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It develops, teaches and imposes a new dogma regarding the Church, a new ecclesiology, according to which no “church” has a right to claim exclusively for itself the character of the Catholic and true Church. Each one is a part, a portion, but not the fullness of the Church. All together they compose the “Church.” However, in this way the borders between truth and delusion, Orthodoxy and heresy, are demolished, all the while superbly promoting the campaign to demolish Orthodoxy. Ecumenism elevates all religions to the same level with “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints,”79 which is knowledge of God and Life according to Christ. In this way it refutes the dogma of the world’s only saving revelation and economy of the incarnate Son and Word of God, as well as His salvific work through the One and (31) Unique, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, through whom the Holy Spirit works. For this reason it is undoubtedly implied that Ecumenism is appointed in our days as the greatest ecclesiological heresy of all time, because it relegates to the same level all religions and faiths.80
Ecumenism actively doubts the Orthodox Patristic tradition and Faith, it sows the seeds of doubt and confusion in the hearts of the flock, shaking many pious and God-loving brothers, and leading them into divisions and schism. It misleads a portion of the flock into delusion and, in this way, into spiritual disaster.81
Ecumenism creates a major pastoral and soteriological problem because it shakes the foundations, abolishes both salvation and man’s glorification (θέωσις) according to Grace. There is, of course, no danger to the Church, which, because it is the Body of Christ, and having Christ as its Head, shall never be destroyed. For it is Christ who exists unto the ages, “and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”!82But it is the members of the Church, the faithful, who are in danger of being lost, as the right faith, Orthodoxy, is lost to them, while heresy and delusion prevail.83
ΧΙΙI) THE ACCURSED AND DEMONIC UNIA
Another integral part of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council is the Decree “Orientalium Ecclesiarum,” or the “Decree on the Catholic Oriental Churches,” that is to say, the Unia, whom the Council officially recognizes and defends with the intention of increasing its role in the “Catholic Church.”84 This is the infamous Uniate form of “unity,” with the supposed “mutual enrichening of both traditions, unity in diversity” propaganda with which our age is saturated. Unity, that is to say, not in faith and in truth, but as a syncretistic fusion, an absorption, in essence, of Orthodoxy into Papism, without the latter having to divest itself of any of its heretical errors.
It would be useful to note that for centuries now the subject of the Unia has been a thorn in the side of relations between the Orthodox and Papists. The origins of the Unia are found in the Lateran Council of 1215 and in the Bull of “Pope” Innocent IV. Officially, however, two Jesuits, Antonio Possevino and Peter Skarga, created the Unia in Poland. These two monks put Unia in practice in Poland. They did this in order to Latinize the Orthodox of Poland and Northwestern Russia. The King of Poland, Sigismund III, whom the two Jesuits had raised, helped them in this. The Polish/Latin word Unia, which means (32)union, was used in order to characterize the “unionist” movement of the “Eastern Orthodox Churches,” namely the union of the Orthodox with the Papist heresy.
This same endeavor was later extended to the Copts, the Nestorians, to the Christians of Malabar, to the Marionites and in general to all Christians, who did not follow the Pope. For the Papist union is only a pretext. For behind this pretext there exists the intention of submitting all to the Pope. On the part of the Orthodox, the disparaging and negatively colored term “Unia” denotes “the religious and political manifestation which was created by the masterminds of Papism for the westernization of the non-Latin East, namely its spiritual and political submission to the authority of the Pope. Unia is regarded as dangerous and heretical for Orthodoxy. Their clergy dress in Orthodox vesture. They wear cassocks and kalymmafchion. They have beards. They appear in every way as Orthodox clergy. Their “churches” are in every way “Orthodox.” They lack the cold statues, which give the appearance and impression of an idolatrous temple. Instead of statues they have icons. The whole structure of the temple, inside and out, is “Orthodox.” The “Divine Liturgy” is performed in the local language of each nation, in which the Unia always acts in a proselytizing manner. No common Orthodox Christian could suspect anything foreign to Orthodoxy. In this way it is possible for simple Christians to take council from Uniate priests and to attend Uniate churches. They are, as Patriarch Joachim III calls them in his encyclical, “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” The clear promotion of the Unia, and its historical connection with your Jesuit past, Your Excellency, is not a coincidence. Even an initial sampling from your enthronement shows that you are preparing them for an elevated role, something that could cause serious problems in the future. “A careful analysis of the first ‘positive’ indications which you gave, leads us to the conclusion that great care is needed for premature exultation.”85
It is at this point that we must emphasize that the Unia has been condemned by “synodal decisions of all the Orthodox Churches without exception… as in the unanimous decision of the Third Pre-SynodalPan-Orthodox Conference (Chambesy, 1986),” but also in Freising, Monaco, in 1990, which was even signed by Papist theologians.86 Any form of exoneration for your Trojan Horse, the accursed and demonic Unia, or the attributing to it of ecclesiastical recognition (text of Balamand 1993), is not a Pan-Orthodox decision, but rather a blatant disregard of these unanimous Pan-Orthodox decisions, which expressly condemn the Unia.
Of course no one can forget the barbaric crimes of the Papists in Serbia during the Second World War: the slaughter of thousands of Serbian Orthodox Christians, in which Papist Uniate Ustaše clergy, monks, etc. participated, and who acted under the direction of the Vatican’s “Holy Archbishop of Genocide” Alojzije Viktor Stepinac. Neither can one forget the fact that the Vatican took an indirect part in the military operations (1990- 1992 and 1998) aimed at the breaking-up of Yugoslavia, to the detriment of the Orthodox Serbs.
The disgraceful and provocative participation of Uniate pseudo-bishops, the reading of the Gospel in Greek by the Uniate “deacon,” and the presence of Uniates in the (33) catacombs of the basilica of Saint Peter87 during Your Excellency’s enthronement, once again propagate the crime of the Unia and the anti-Christian violation of our immaculate Church.88 The Unia is nothing less than the most shameful form of proselytism and polemics against the Orthodox Church, and these recent actions reveal the true face of the Unia, as well as the depth of hypocrisy with which the Vatican ceaselessly conducts itself towards the Orthodox.
In fact, this is part of a propaganda plan by the Vatican that is designed to change the negative atmosphere surrounding it, and to impress the dogmatically uninitiated Orthodox faithful. Another reason for these actions was to strengthen the Unia in Greece, which His resigned Excellency, Benedict XVI, upgraded with the appointment of the Uniate “bishop” Dimitri Salachas to Athens (Acharnon St.) in 2008.
On the part of the controlled Greek media, the reading of the Gospel in Greek from a Uniate “deacon” was commented on positively as an act of respect on Your Excellency’s part towards His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew, who was present at your enthronement. However, that you chose a member of the Uniate “clergy” to read the Gospel at such an important Papist event obviously sends an additional message to the world. This kind of symbolic act, viewed live by millions, was not by chance, nor did the large number of Uniates which took part in the service go without comment.
It is obvious that, on the one hand, and for the above reasons, the Unia is condemned as a method of unification, and yet on the other hand, it is imposed by the Papists as the sole means of accomplishing unity, in accordance with the fundamentals of the Second Vatican Council. However, we unfortunately see an example of the Orthodox toleration of the Unia in the interruption of the Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Papists, due to the problem of Unia (VIII plenary session, Baltimore 2000), followed by the recommencing of the dialogue, this time with the participation of the Unia as legitimate interlocutors, without having resolved any issues regarding the Unia. It is well known that the scandalous intervention by the Papists, on behalf of the Unia, into the work of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue was the reason for the derailment of discussions in Baltimore. His former Excellency, Benedict XVI, praised the Uniate endeavors in the preservation of their distinct character in an epistle to the Uniate Ukrainian “Archbishop” Lubomyr Husa, adding “in the patient daily journey of faith, in communion with the successors of the Apostles,… the Ukrainian Catholic community has managed to uphold Sacred Tradition in its integrity. In order for this precious heritage of ‘Paradosis’ (or Tradition) to survive in all its richness, it is important to guarantee the presence of the two great currents of the one Tradition – the Latin current and the Orthodox current. The dual mission entrusted to the Greek-Catholic Church in full communion with Peter. On the one hand, her task is to ensure the oriental tradition remains visible in the Catholic Church, on the other, to favor the encounter of the traditions, bearing witness not only to their compatibility, but also to their profound unity in diversity.”89 His Excellency, Benedict XVI, himself received the Greek-based Uniate “bishop” of Gratianopolis, along with a group of Papist Greek “bishops,” and had his photograph taken together with them, in which the Uniate“bishop” of Gratianopolis (34) appears dressed in Orthodox garb.90 Also, in Ephesus, during the 2006 visit of Benedict XVI to Turkey and to the Phanar, he supported the Unia, stating “according to him the best way to unity in the Church is that of Unia.”91 In clear contrast to this, at the 3rd Pan- Orthodox Conference it was stated by the Orthodox that “Unia and Dialogue can not exist together.”92
Papism’s persistence not only to preserve the Unia, but also to keep it active in the middle of Athens via the Uniate parish of the Holy Trinity, under the leadership of the Uniate “bishop” (as if the Latin “bishop” of Athens and the Pope’s Nuncio weren’t enough), is a scandal to the Orthodox, and no less a scandal than that of the Inquisition or the coexistence of both political and ecclesiastical power in Your Excellency’s personage, in spite of the Lord’s express command “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”93 The fact that Papism has also installed Uniate“churches” among all the ancient, and once Orthodox, “churches” of the East (Coptic, Armenian, Melkite, Syrian Jacobite, Abyssinian) also establishes, despite the deceit of the founders and guardians ofUnia, Papism’s intent to preserve the Unia as a method, a prototype, of “unification” in order to “return” the Orthodox and the remainder of the eastern Christians to Rome.94
In Your Excellency’s message at the one-day interfaith seminar in Constantinople, on May 17, 2013, with the topic “Religious Freedom Today,” on the 1700th anniversary of Emperor Constantine the Great’s“Edict of Milan,” you stated: “I look forward with hope to the day when the divisions of the second millennium will be definitively consigned to the past.”95
Among other things, you stressed to the representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch (His Grace Ioannis Metropolitan of Pergamon, His Grace Athenagoras of Sinope and The Very Reverend ArchimandritePromdromos Xenakis), who had arrived at the Vatican in order to take part in the celebrations of the feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul: “It is significant that today we are able to reflect together, in truth and love, on these issues, starting with what we have in common, but without hiding that which still separates us. This is not merely a theoretical exercise, but one of getting to know each other’s traditions in order to understand, and sometimes also to learn from them.” Elsewhere, speaking of unity, you stressed that, “We know very well that unity is primarily a gift from God for which we must pray without ceasing, but we all have the task of preparing the conditions, of cultivating the soil of the heart, so that this extraordinary grace can be received.” Regarding the developments of the Dialogue between the Orthodox and Papists you stated: “unity among Christians is an urgency which, today more than ever, we cannot ignore. A fundamental contribution to the search for full communion between Catholics and Orthodox is offered by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue, co-chaired by Your Eminence, Metropolitan Ioannis, and by my venerable (35) brother Cardinal Kurt Koch.” You also added, “I sincerely thank you for your valuable and tireless commitment. This Commission has already produced many common texts and is now studying the delicate issue of theological and ecclesiological relationship between primacy and synodality in the life of the Church.” You underscored further, “I am confident that the effort of shared reflection, so complex and laborious, will bear fruit in due time.” Finally, you stressed, “I am comforted to know that Catholics and Orthodox share the same conception of dialogue that does not seek a theological minimalism on which to reach a compromise, but rather is based on the deepening of the one truth that Christ has given to His Church.”96
You should know, Your Excellency, that for us Orthodox there do not exist many forms and models of reunion, neither is the “Uniate” form of union valid, which you wish to impose, allowing each “confession” to keep its own ecclesiastical customs and traditions, but requiring that they recognize your universal primacy of power and commemorate you in the diptychs and the services. For the Orthodox Church the one and only form and model of reunion with the Catholic Orthodox Church is nothing less than your repentance, the official renunciation of your heresies and errors, the public confession of the Orthodox faith in full and your return to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church.97
If one studies carefully the development of relations between the Orthodox and the Papists, one will perceive that there exists a plan of the Vatican’s that is gradually being put into effect until “union” is achieved. The Professor John Karmiris, of blessed memory, wrote the following about the Vatican’s plan to promote the union of the Orthodox and Papist: “Pope Paul VI and his circle of Papist theologians worked out a well-researched and broad program of Rome-centered Ecumenism, in agreement with Latin Ecclesiology.”98 His Grace, Chrysostom of Peristeri, clarifies the type of union that is planned: “The Papists, in one way or another, are letting it be understood that the Orthodox Church can unite with them through a form of union that is identical or similar with that which exists between the former and the Uniates.”99 However, Fr. John Romanidis, of blessed memory, revealed that a Papist “bishop” had confided to him that, according to the Vatican’s plan, the union would not happen from the top, that is to say, from the bishops, the theologians and the dialogues, but rather from the so-called grassroots ecumenism, that is to say, through the mutual association between the two sides and the gradual implementation of sacramental intercommunion (intercommunio), which is already being put into effect by Rome and the Orthodox Ecumenists.100
According to the program of Papist Ecumenism the following steps have already been (36) taken:
1.) The uncanonical lifting of the anathemas of 1054 by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI, without solving the dogmatic differences.
2.) The exchange of visits by the Primates and the surrendering, on the part of the Vatican, of various holy relics. In this way the impression is given that the Vatican is favorably disposed to the Orthodox.
3.) The commencement of the theological dialogue on the basis of what already unites the two sides.
In this way the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue, through a series of common documents – which in the beginning contained the seeds of mutual recognition of the same faith, the same introductory sacraments, the same priesthood and apostolic succession between the Orthodox and the Papists, and in general the recognition of the two Churches as “sister Churches,” – ultimately produced, with all solemnity, the Balamand Declaration (June 23rd, 1993) during its VIIth plenary session. This document proclaims their ecclesiastical identity to be as follows: “Since the pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and valuation of the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church – profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, especially the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, and the apostolic succession of bishops – cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. It is clear that within this framework, any kind of re-baptism is ruled out.”101 And this recognition ofPapism as a complete and true “Church” was made in spite of the sedulous preservation of its dogmatic differences between it and the faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church!
The union which is being attempted, regardless of the fact that the Vatican has been preparing it for decades, will not be accepted by many Orthodox. It will nevertheless bring about a fragmentation of Orthodoxy; for it will be accomplished not by solving the essential dogmatic differences – that is, without the Papists renouncing their heretical dogmas (Filioque, Papal Primacy, created Grace, etc.) – but rather by a reinterpretation of these errors in a manner innocuous for the Vatican yet acceptable to some Orthodox. Of course, our secularized culture, which is suckled by the mantras of globalization and the New Age movement, does not possess the dogmatic sensitivity of the Orthodox, which once repudiated the decisions of the “uniting” Council of Ferrara-Florence. Nevertheless, there exist, even today, the people of God, the prophetic remnant of conscious Orthodox Christians, who will resist every form of union that is not a product of the true Orthodox Faith.
The concern of many Orthodox Christians for all these recent events proves that the Orthodox conscience is functioning.102 These few will always be a majority: in the (37) Church, the majority is not found in numbers but in communion with the Truth, which is not an idea or a philosophy, but a person, the incarnate Word Who declared: “I am the way, the truth and the life.” Even if only one is in communion with the “Truth” (Christ), this is a majority!
XIV) PRIMACY AND CONCILIARITY
From the decisions of the Second Vatican Council we ascertain that, except for a few innocuous and superficial concessions on the part of the Vatican towards the Orthodox, Papism’s Primacy and Infallibility were not limited or concealed, but were even strengthened in comparison to the First Vatican Council. “The Second Vatican ‘Council’… did not neglect to elevate and reinforce even further the Papal office, even to the point where some of the ‘See’s’ ardent followers in the ‘Council’ gave the impression that the head of the Church was no longer Christ but Peter and through him the Pope.”103 Regarding the concessions, “they were external changes in the policy and appearance of the ‘Church’ of Rome, not however internal changes in its teaching.”104 The pioneer and inspirer of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII, in his Encyclical Epistle “Ad Petri Cathedram” stated the objective of the Council: “This event will be a wonderful spectacle of truth, unity, and charity. For those who behold it but are not one with this Apostolic See, We hope that it will be a gentle invitation to seek and find that unity for which Jesus Christ prayed so ardently to His Father in heaven.”105 Pope Paul VI, in his first, post-election Encyclical “Ecclesi Amsuam” (August 6th, 1965) during Vatican II wrote: “Those who believe that we will abandon our perquisites, which were given by God through the Apostle Peter, are deceiving themselves.” Pope John Paul II, with his Encyclical “Lumen Orientalis” (March 25th, 1995) followed the same line. As professor John Panagopoulos, of blessed memory, writes: “The Encyclical returns to the statements of the Second Vatican Council regarding Ecumenism with intransigence and inflexibility… Any discussion about ecclesiastical unity presupposes unconditional acceptance of Papal Primacy, which God founded ‘as an everlasting and visible authority and foundation of unity.’” Similar view points are put forward in the Papal Encyclical “Ut Unum Sint.”
On September 22nd, 2013, in an interview in the well-known magazine La Civilta Cattolica, you spoke about the importance of the dialogue with the Orthodox and also how you, the Papists, could “learn” from the way in which conciliarity works within the Orthodox Churches. In the almost thirty page interview of the magazine’s final issue you spoke about, among other things, the importance of the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Papists. “We must walk together: the people, the bishops and the pope.
(38) Synodality should be lived at various levels,” you stressed. “Maybe it is time to change the methods of the Synod of Bishops, because it seems to me that the current method is not dynamic. This will also have ecumenical value, especially with our Orthodox brethren.”
You underlined how from the Orthodox “we can learn more about the meaning of Episcopal collegiality and the tradition of synodality.” You stressed how “The joint effort of reflection, looking at how the Church was governed in the early centuries, before the breakup between East and West, will bear fruit in due time. In ecumenical relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us.” You also noted your desire “to continue the discussion that was begun in 2007 by the joint [Catholic–Orthodox] commission on how to exercise the Petrine primacy, which led to the signing of the Ravenna Document,” and emphasized that, “We must continue on this path.”106 Touching upon the theological dialogue between the Orthodox and the Papists you maintained that “The biggest problem remains the issue of the Primacy. The Primacy exists and has always existed in the Church, but it is a matter of how this Primacy is to be interpreted and applied.”107
The Roman newspaper La Repubblica on April 7th, 2013, reported that you entered for the first time into the basilica of St. John Lateran, in the “Eternal City”, to officially undertake your responsibilities as “bishop” of the Italian capital; and in an attempt to reconnect with the Orthodox, you weren’t characterized as “Owner of the vineyard who oversees his possession from on high,” as was the case with His former Excellency, Benedict XVI. The new text which was read mentions that you, Your Excellency, “preside with fraternity over all the churches and, with steadfast tenderness, lead all in the ways of holiness.” According to the newspaper, the reason for this behavior is, on the one hand, to underline that you “command a Primacy, which should be exercised, however, with a spirit of fraternity and mercy. And on the other hand, to push for a more collective governing of Papism, with a new kind of internal, horizontal management.”
As was observed, even from the first days after Your Excellency’s election, you prefer to be referred to as “bishop of Rome” rather than “Pontiff” and hint at a return to a Primacy, which functions on the level of faith and mercy and not as unlimited, general jurisdiction. Finally, Agostino Vallini, the Vicar General of Rome, read in your presence a wish that you will “be able to form, from all the ends of the earth, one flock, with one shepherd.”108
It is obvious that there is preparation, promotion and support of newfound theories, with which the Filioque, Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility are to be interpreted by the Papists in a way that will be acceptable to the Orthodox. The well-known Papist “cleric” and Vatican executive, Pierre Duprey, once stated: “We will formulate Papal Primacy in a way that they will accept it.”
(39) The course set by the Vatican is faithfully being followed. Until recently it was emphasized, even by Orthodox Ecumenists, that there exist dogmatic differences between the Orthodox and the Papists, which, unless they are reconciled, will not allow for union. Now it is emphasized, again even by Orthodox Ecumenists, that we allegedly have a common faith and a common tradition, and that under certain conditions we would be able to accept the Primacy: “We have the same faith and the same tradition. The main problem that must be solved is the Primacy of the ‘bishop’ of Rome, that is to say the role of the ‘Pope,’” stated the ecumenist John Metropolitan of Pergamon. “I believe that we can find a solution to what is the exact definition of the position that the ‘bishop’ of Rome holds in the structure of the universal Church. The Orthodox are ready to accept the idea of universal primacy and, according to the canons of the ancient Church, the ‘bishop’ of Rome was ‘primus’… The disagreement is found in a fundamental issue, can the ‘bishop’ of Rome intervene in the life of the local churches?” He added that: “He can’t intervene without a common decision made by all of the bishops. In a word, the ‘bishop’ of Rome should always act in agreement with the synod.”109 First, we would like to point out here that the consciousness of the Church has never accepted this idea that, after the schism, the Orthodox and the Papists have a common faith and tradition. Witnesses to this are great hierarchs and God-bearing Fathers, such as St. Gregory Palamas, St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Meletius Pegas, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, St. Nektariosof Pentapolis, Dositheos II of Jerusalem and many others, as well as the Synodical decisions of the Orthodox Patriarchs during the years 1848, 1868, and 1895. Furthermore, the simple Orthodox people, in spite of the tribulations of the Turkish occupation and despite systematic Latin propaganda and pressures, which it faced from time to time on the part of the Unia, did not apostatize, except in a few cases, but remained faithful to the dogmas and the Faith of its Church.110
Your Excellency called upon the “bishops” of the Vatican, throughout the world, to study the Synodal (conciliar) System of the Orthodox Church, because useful conclusions could be drawn from this inquiry. Is this a genuine change of the Vatican or is it a theatrical performance with the aim of deceiving the Orthodox? If, indeed, it is a genuine change, prepare yourself to surrender all your privileges – Primacy and Infallibility (the latter making you a god on earth, since only God is infallible) – something that is inconceivable, since, until this day, Papism has not divested itself of its heresies and erroneous beliefs. If it is a theatrical performance then it serves the plans to deceive the Orthodox in order to accommodate the false union of the Orthodox with the heretical Christians without the latter having to renounce its heresies and erroneous beliefs.111
The outreach to the Orthodox on the part of the Vatican is one of the keynotes of the Second Vatican Council through the decree “Dominus Iesus.” Professor of the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki,Stylianos Tsobanidis, writes: “After Vatican II the promotion of the ecumenist spirit and dialogue, as well as the cooperation with other churches, became a basic concern of the local Papist ‘Churches’ in many places of the world. At the same time bipartite dialogues were begun with the Orthodox, the Anglicans (40) and the Protestants.”112 In addition, the decree “Unitatis Redintegratio” opens the door to cooperation and dialogue with the other Christian “Churches,” overcoming age-old conflicts.
On April 14th, 2013 television stations transmitted reports about Your Excellency’s simplicity of dress, drawing attention to the fact that not only do you differ from your predecessors in your comportment but also in your manner of living. These reports added that you had established a commission to change the manner in which the Vatican and the “Churches” throughout the world are governed, adding that your desire is to approach the Orthodox manner of administration and decision making (conciliarity). We pray in all truth that you will fulfill this. However, if you truly desire to approach the Orthodox way, you should renounce “Papal Primacy” or “Papal Infallibility,” which makes of you a demigod. You have done neither. Furthermore, you give no indication that you will soon renounce Papism’s greatest heresy, theFilioque, in order to return to Orthodoxy and be recognized as the legitimate Patriarch Bishop of Old Rome. A ruse of the media will suffice for you, in order to change the Vatican’s image and to mislead those Orthodox, who are uninitiated in ecclesiastical and dogmatic matters concerning Papism.113
Your Excellency, you speak of a “deep mutual understanding of the traditions of both Churches,” something which any first year student of theology understands! If, after almost a century of dialogues the “experts” have not understood this, when will they? Also, we know very well the “way in which the Catholic Church understands the meaning of Episcopal coexistence and the tradition of conciliarity,” since the ecclesiological definitions of the last two Vatican “Councils” are crystal clear, as is the way in which you wield your authority.114 Your Excellency’s statement that, “In ecumenical relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us,” is in itself an implementation of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, principally the “Decree on Ecumenism,” according to which the Grace of the Holy Spirit works even outside of the Church. Vatican II expanded the concept of the Church and created a “new Church,” which includes even heretics and schismatics. It is in this way that you maintain that the Holy Spirit works within the framework of this “new Church,” and therefore within the heretics and schismatics. This means that you have changed the criteria that you use to acknowledge this “new Church.” This “new Church” as sacramental unity is not founded on unity of faith, apostolic succession, the priesthood and the sacraments. In contrast, this new ecclesiology of yours is in direct and acute conflict with the consensus of the Holy Fathers (consensus patrum), according to which the Holy Spirit and sacramental Grace (purifying, illuminating and deifying energies) do not exist outside of the Orthodox Catholic Church, and therefore the grace of the Holy Spirit does not act within heretics and schismatics.
You see the decay of your heresy. You see that the solution is a return to Orthodoxy, and yet you are worried about losing “Petrine primacy”! Nevertheless, since you are (41) unwilling to abandon your precious “Petrine primacy,” the collapse of the sinful and crumbling edifice of Papism is predetermined. In Your Excellency’s recent interview with the Italian magazine “La Civilta Cattolica,” perhaps unintentionally you let slip how the governance of the Papist “Church” needs changing. “Maybe it is time to change the methods of the Synod of Bishops, because it seems to me that the current method is not dynamic.” In other words, you’re aware that the despotism of the Papist system is no longer “in style,” and now you are searching for ways in which to save the Papism, which is continually sinking deeper into the unbelievable mire of scandals, some of which have touched even the Papal chambers. It is obvious how you are no longer able to control the self-determining tendencies of your Cardinals, who have long ceased to take you into consideration. The ethical and economical scandals are now happening under your very nose! Even a powerful “gay lobby” has been formed in the depths of the Vatican! But your most interesting statement of all was: “The joint effort of reflection, looking at how the church was governed in the early centuries, before the breakup between East and West, will bear fruit in due time.”
The Ecumenical Council is the highest criteria of ecclesiality. For us Orthodox the highest form of ecclesiastical government is the Ecumenical Council, not a man, a “Pope”. Here is our essential difference withPapism. The Protestants abolished everything. They are more honorable than you. They are more honorable because they did not want to keep something from the Church’s tradition yet distort it. Papism, however, replaced the Ecumenical Council with the “Pope” and made it a tool of Papism, a maidservant of Papist schemes. In Orthodoxy the Ecumenical Council is, and will be until the end of time, the highest institution in the life of the Church. Ecumenical means a Council of the entire world. According to the definition given by Xenophon and in Greek Byzantium, that is to say, in Hellenic Romania, the word Ecumenical essentially means the inhabited world. Thus we have “Ecumenical Teachers” or “Ecumenical Fathers,” etc. So an Ecumenical Council is a council of the whole world that confronts the important problems of faith and order of the Church. Ecumenical Councils presuppose a crisis in the body of the Church, which means that salvation is being threatened. As the mouth of the Church the Ecumenical Council comes to proclaim, in every situation, the saving Truth, according to the Prophets, the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers and Mothers throughout the ages.115
As was stressed at the Theological and Scientific conference of our Holy Metropolis with the title “Primacy, Conciliarity and Unity of the Church,” at the Stadium of Peace and Friendship on April 28th, 2010, “Papal primacy has no theological foundation, no legitimacy from the Holy Spirit, and no ecclesiological legitimacy. It is clearly based on a worldly understanding of authority. Unity belongs to the nature of the Church, as it is the Body of Christ and communion in Him. The true Church is one. The unity of the Church in all its interpretations – structural or charismatic (Grace-bearing) – clearly has its foundation in the Holy Spirit. It is extended mystically, but is maintained and fostered chiefly through Holy Communion. According to the ‘Confession of Faith’ of the Synod of Constantinople in 1727, ‘Therefore no other head whatsoever is accepted in this Eastern Church, save only our Lord Jesus Christ, given by the Father to the whole (42) Church, and serving as its foundation.’ According to Orthodox ecclesiology, ‘primate’ is not understood generally and indefinitely, but rather in conjunction with a particular synod of a region. The concept of a ‘rank of honor’ (the term which Orthodox ecclesiastical tradition uses, instead of the later term ‘primacy’ which the Papists use) expresses and ensures the unity and synodality of the Orthodox Catholic Church. The pentarchy of the patriarchal thrones is the form that the Church gave to the concept of a rank of honor during the first millennium. The authority of the ‘primate,’ which derives from the rank of honor, is a fruit of synodality, while the “primacy” which the bishop of Rome had already started to appropriate during the first millennium is a result of the abolition of the synodal organization of the Church. In the Church of the first millennium there was no papal primacy ‘by divine right’ which had jurisdiction or authority over the whole Church. On the contrary, the Church had the right to make decisions about its administration without the Pope, even in spite of his strong opposition, and these decisions were universally valid. After the schism of 1054, the increasing claim of the popes for primacy of authority over the whole Church completely subverted the structure of the mystical body of the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit. It makes synodality (as a function of this body inspired by the Holy Spirit) relative – practically abolishing it – and introduces the worldly mindset to it. It nullifies the equality of bishops, misappropriates the complete administrative authority of the whole Church, essentially setting aside the Theanthropos (the God-Man) and making a man the visible head of the Church. In this way the ancestral sin is repeated in this institution. True unity takes place when there is unity in faith, in worship, and administration. This is the model of unity in the ancient Church, which the universal Orthodox Church continues to hold unchanged. The Unia introduces a false unity and is based on a heretical ecclesiology, since it allows different forms of faith and worship, and makes unity contingent on the recognition of the primacy of the pope. The papacy is an institution of human justice which undermines the synodal structure of the administration of the Church, the true institution of divine justice. Multiformity is only acceptable in secondary matters of local traditions and customs. After the First Vatican Council (1870) and especially the Second Vatican Council (1962- 1964) papal primacy no longer comprises a simple administrative assertion, but an essential dogma of faith absolutely necessary for the salvation of the faithful. Its denial incurs the anathema of the First Vatican Council, whose validity remains still after the Second Vatican Council. ‘Due to the heretical and blasphemous doctrine of Papal Primacy and the spiritual ramifications which come from it (such as the ‘infallibility’ of the Pope), Papism has developed into an autocratic-monarchic religious ideology, which is a perversion of the meaning of the Church. It has proven to be modern Franco-Roman ethnic paganism in a spiritual disguise, and has taken away the mystical freedom in Christ for each of [the Church’s] members. This is the unfortunate yet inevitable cause of the falling away of many from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church into myriad heresies, and at the same time acts as an insurmountable obstacle to their return.’116 According to the assessment by the participants of the current theological dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, its attempt to restore ecclesiastical communion must somehow – beyond the elimination of the heretical teachings of Rome (Filioque, created grace, infallibility, purgatory, etc.) – also aim at the definitive elimination of Papal Primacy, and not at some commonly acceptable interpretation of it. Finally, the (43) syncretistic framework of ‘unity in diversity’ cannot be considered acceptable as a model for the restoration of full communion.”117
Concerning the disgraceful Ravenna Document, to which we have alluded, the Holy Abbot of the Holy Monastery of St. Gregory, Mt. Athos, the Very Reverend Archimandrite George Kapsanis writes that “the Ravenna agreement regarding conciliarity and authority does not fulfill the Orthodox ecclesiological criteria, so as to form a safe foundation for further discussion on the subject of Papal Primacy. However, if there should follow a discussion about how Papal Primacy was interpreted during the second millennium and by the 1st and 2nd Vatican Councils, this ought to happen on the part of the Orthodox representatives, having as their guide the Orthodoxy of the Holy Fathers and not the compromising mindset of our times, nor the Vatican’s disposition for control. The recognition of some of the above Papal ‘privileges,’ or an agreement to something similar – which is contrary to the Orthodox Church – undoubtedly would mean a ‘Uniate’ union, to which we could not agree. That is because we are obliged to safeguard ourselves and the Orthodox people from a modern version of ‘uniatization,’ which, besides other consequences, would place in danger our eternal salvation. And because we are obliged at the same time to also help, if it is possible, You, the ‘leaders of the Western ‘Churches,’ to come to your senses,’ as Chrisanthos, the ever memorable Patriarch of Jerusalem, said, and to reject Papism for their own salvation and the salvation of their people, who are ignorant of Orthodoxy.”118 Professor of Dogmatics at the Theological School of the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, Dimitrios Tselengidis, underscores that “in the common text (of Ravenna) the Orthodox Ecclesiology is unacceptably extended and applied to the heterodox. This is done unconditionally, that is to say, without taking into account the existing dogmatic differences, something that legitimizes the ecclesiology of the heterodox, and raises it to the same level with Orthodoxy. This modern ecclesiology is found throughout the entire common Document and breaks it into many individual ecclesiological anomalies,119 which alter the self-consciousness that the Orthodox have had until now. That is to say, the common Document seems clearly to presuppose that the Orthodox and the Papist belong to the ‘One Church’ and that the Papists have a common apostolic faith with us, in spite of identifying God’s essence with His energies, in spite of theFilioque, and in spite of their erroneous dogmatic teaching regarding the created character of God’s uncreated and deifying Grace. All of the above, to which the Papists are firmly committed until this day, acts to abolish the character of the Church as a ‘community of theosis,’120 using the (44) ontological meaning of the phrase, that is to say, actual and not symbolic participation of man in the divine life. At the same time they abolish the essential character of the Church’s Mysteries (Sacraments). In examining the common Document (and without emphasizing the other dogmatic differences of the Papists, regarding Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.) we can safely maintain that the basis of the dialogue, judging with theological criteria, is, unfortunately, completely erroneous. And this is because foundational Biblical and Patristic stipulations and presuppositions were pushed aside. This is also the reason why the essential failure of a genuine theological dialogue is a foregone conclusion. The theological dialogue has already led the Joint International Commission to deliver ten common documents without the consideration of the above presuppositions, since in none of the these documents is there a clear condemnation of Papism’s newfound dogmas, e.g. the Filioque. Observing this policy with manifest alarm, the Blessed Elder Paisius of Mt. Athos accurately and prophetically observed: ‘We started out in one direction and now, without our noticing, we are headed somewhere else. This is what happens when we do not follow in the footsteps of the Holy Fathers.’ From the beginning of the 20th century, starting with the well known Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920, the exhortation of St. Gregory Palamas to the Papists – that the Theological Dialogue with the Papists can happen only after the removal of the addition of the Filioque from the Symbol of Faith121 – has been essentially pushed aside, and other presuppositions for the Theological Dialogue with the heterodox have been adopted. In this way a new, non-Patristic course was set, with the inevitable result that now ‘(perhaps) with out our noticing, we are headed somewhere else.’ The Ravenna Document eloquently exhibits the negative consequences of the erroneous presuppositions of the Theological Dialogue and shows the true face of those conducting it, unless of course, in the meantime the presuppositions of the Dialogue are changed.”122
In addition, we humbly infer the following: The Apostle Peter did not receive from the Lord any “Primacy” of administration or power more than the other Apostles or anyone else in the Church (according to the consensus of the great Fathers of the Church about the true meaning of the Biblical verses), that would make him able to transmit this kind of power to any of his spiritual successors (despite the fact that the Apostles had no personal spiritual successors, being the founders of many Churches). You have even distorted the triple question “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?”, by which the disciple who had denied Christ was restored to the ranks of the Apostles, as a so-called argument for the foundation of the false and nonexistent “Petrine Primacy.” However, this argument of yours is unsuccessful because the Evangelist writes characteristically, (45) “Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?” (John 21:15-19) He was grieved and did not rejoice because he remembered his thrice denial. Within the conciliar administration of the first Church of Jerusalem, which was made up of the Apostles all equal in rank (again, after the conciliar election of Matthias), the Apostle Peter did, on the one hand, have an honorable distinction, introducing the matters to be discussed or speaking first. He did not, however, have the leadership of administration nor the simple honorary chairmanship, because this was held by the Apostle James (Adelphotheos).
We will now concisely add not only the equally clear Biblical witnesses, but also those of history, from which it will be (according to us) fully proved that the Apostle Peter was neither the founder of the Church of Rome, neither was he martyred and neither did he even travel to that city.
Among these witnesses, the majority of which are more extensively developed in the scholarly historical study by Saint Nektarios, Bishop of Pentapolis, pgs 12-40, we place before you the first catholic epistle of the Apostle Peter “To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia…”, which was written approximately 62 A.D. In this epistle, despite the fact that it is a catholic epistle, the city of Rome is not mentioned, either because it was written from Rome, or because at the point of his writing he had not taught in this city. However, the very epistle itself rules out the first option, since it states that it was written in Babylon. This obviously is the Babylon of Egypt (since, accord to historical witness it could not be the ancient Babylon) south of Heliopolis, where there existed a large Jewish community, in which was even kept the tomb of the prophet Jeremiah. This is also strengthened by the claim of the Christians of Egypt that the founder of the Church of Alexandria was the Apostle Peter, who entrusted the care of that Church to his follower the Evangelist Mark. We therefore conclude that until the composition of the first catholic epistle, namely until about 62 A.D., the Apostle Peter had not journeyed to Rome.
That the Apostle Peter did not travel to Rome after the composition of his first epistle is witnessed to in his second catholic epistle, understanding, of course, that this epistle was obviously written for the Gentile Christians, whereas the first was written for the Jewish Christians. In this epistle there is also no mention of city of Rome.
Finally, the fact that, near the end of his life, the Apostle Peter did not journey to Rome is verified by the Apostle Paul’s second epistle to Timothy, in which he writes: “At my first defense no one took my part; all deserted me. May it not be charged against them! But the Lord stood by me and gave me strength to proclaim the message fully, that all the Gentiles might hear it.” 123 From this epistle of the Apostle Paul, which was written near the end of his life, it is clearly verified, that during its writing, the Apostle Peter was not in Rome, otherwise the Apostle Paul would out of necessity have mentioned it.
Moreover, it is clear that before the composition of this epistle, the Apostle Peter had not traveled to Rome. If he had already preached there it would not be possible for the Apostle Paul to write that “also in Rome the Gentiles were taught and heard the (46) preaching by him.”
When we add to these Biblical witnesses all that is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles124 regarding the Apostle Paul’s first journey to Rome, something that we will expand upon shortly, along with his epistle to the Romans, we come to the indubitable conclusion that, before the Apostle Paul’s first journey to Rome and also before the composition of his second epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Peter had not traveled to Rome.
Furthermore, the possibility that the Apostle Peter made the journey after the composition of this epistle, which, as we already stated, was written a few years before the death of the Apostle Paul, should also be ruled out, for the simple fact that there existed no reason for the Apostle Peter to do so, since the Church of Rome, which was founded by the Apostle Paul, already counted among itself a cloud of martyrs. As well, the time period rules it out, since it is highly probable that shortly after Nero’s persecution broke out both of the Apostles were martyred. They were not, however, martyred in Rome; there exists no serious historical witness. All of the relevant witnesses, as shall be proved by the following, were based in good faith on ancient custom, which itself was based on apocryphal books and false sources.
Besides, indisputable historical witnesses confirm the opposite of this possibility in question. Among these witnesses we find that of St. Clement of Rome (88-97 A.D.): “… But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy of others, endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the East and West, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extreme limit of the West, and [finally] suffering martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.” From these words of our Holy Father we draw the certain conclusion that neither of the Chiefs of the Apostles were martyred in Rome, because otherwise he would have mentioned this fact, and in addition, that they were not executed for accusation of starting the Great Fire of Rome, but because of envy and jealousy, and finally that only the Apostle Paul became a preacher to the West, “and having come to the extreme limit of the West.”
It is also verified that the Apostle Paul traveled to Spain (which was the extreme limit of the West), as he writes in his epistle the Romans: “I have longed for many years to come to you, I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be sped on my journey there by you…”125 Moreover, according to St. Clement, he was evidently martyred there, “and having come to the extreme limit of the West” (ἐπί τότέρμα τῆς Δύσεως ἐλθών).
(47) Regardless, however, of the time and place of the death of the Chiefs of the Apostles, in our opinion, the most significant witness to the fact that the Apostle Peter did not travel to Rome before the Apostle Paul, and therefore that he did not found the Church in Rome, is concluded from the juxtaposition of the epistle to the Romans with the Acts of the Apostles126 regarding the Apostle Paul’s first journey to Rome.
The Christians of Rome (to whom the epistle to the Romans was written) apparently came, on the one hand, from the Gentiles of Syria, Macedonia and Greece, who had been former apprentices to the Apostle Paul, and on the other hand from the large Jewish community in Rome. Without comprising an organized Church they were coming together and apparently being taught in various homes, such as the home of Aquilla and Priscilla.127 We gather this from the first chapter of this epistle, verses 6 through 15 (where the Apostle stresses that he is “Apostle to the Gentiles,” and “I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome”), as well as from the eleventh chapter, verse 13 “Now I am speaking to you Gentiles…”
And so, writing from Corinth, around 58 A.D., to the Christians of Rome, the Apostle Paul emphasizes: “so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation.”128 And he adds: “This is the reason why I have so often been hindered from coming to you… I have longed for many years to come to you. I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain.”129 Is this not sufficient proof that, when writing to the Christians of Rome, the Apostle Paul knew full well that until him, “no one else had told them of Christ,” and that “no one before him had laid a foundation,” and thus for these reasons he desired to visit them?
Consequently, the Apostle Peter had not journeyed to Rome before the composition of this epistle, that is, before 58 A.D. Perhaps he made the journey during the two-year period that intervened between the writing of the epistle and the Apostle Paul’s first visit to Rome? For us, that which is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles130 regarding the Apostle Paul’s first visit to Rome, and his subsequent two-year stay, rules this out completely. Here is a summary of events:
The Christians brothers of Rome received the Apostle Paul and those with him, coming “as far as the Forum of Appius.”131 The fact that these Christians where known to the Apostle is evident from the fact that they came out to meet him and that, upon seeing them, the Apostle “took courage.” Nevertheless, there does not exist among these brothers any obvious “bishop” of the Church of Rome, nor presbyter. Otherwise, there would have been special mention of him, as is the case with the presbyters of the Church (48) in Ephesus.132
Afterwards, receiving permission to stay “in his own hired dwelling,”133 (where he also resided for two years), he invites, three days after his arrival to Rome, the “local leaders of the Jews,”134 speaking with them about our Lord Jesus Christ, “of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain.”135 Answering that they had received no letter about him, and stating as Jews (and especially as elders of the Jews in Rome) that no one else among their fellow Hebrews had previously reported or spoken any evil about him, they demand to hear his teaching, which they call heresy, because they knew that “everywhere it is spoken against.” A day was appointed, the Apostle began his teaching, “and some were convinced by what he said, while others disbelieved.”136
It is to those who were convinced, and to the remaining preexisting Christian brothers, that the epistle to the Romans was addressed; and it was for these same that the Apostle Paul founded the Church of Rome, ordaining his disciple Linus as bishop. How then is it possible in this detailed account of the Apostle Paul’s first visit to Rome, and his subsequent two-year stay, for there not to be even the slightest allusion to the Apostle Peter’s visit, or to the existence of an organized Church founded by him, or to the name of the bishop of this Church?
How, too, are the “local leaders of the Jews” in Rome silent about the prior presence of the Apostle Peter, the “brother” and “teacher” of the Jews? Indeed, they state that “none of the brethren” had yet come to them, and they make demands of the Apostle Paul to hear the Christian teaching. If the Apostle Peter had previously traveled to Rome and had preached and established a Church would it be possible for the “local leaders of the Jews” to be unaware of this? In their discussion with the Apostle Paul is it possible there was no intimation about a bishop?
In addition, the epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Philippians, Colossians and to Titus, which undoubtedly were written in Rome during the Apostle’s two-year stay in that city, nowhere mention the Apostle Peter, yet, especially in the letter to the Colossians, there is reference to many other names. All of this comprises an irrefutable witness to the fact that the Apostle Peter neither went to Rome before the Apostle Paul, nor after, nor during the latter’s sojourn. Additionally confirmation that the Apostle Peter had not journeyed to Rome is found in the second epistle to Timothy, which, as we already stated, was written from Rome shortly before the death of the Apostle Paul (64-67 A.D.).
Nevertheless, other verified historical events, in combination with the aforementioned Biblical witnesses, demonstrate that the Papist allegations regarding the Apostle Peter’s continuous sojournings in Rome – after his arrival in 41 A.D. until his martyrdom under Nero in 66 A.D. – are completely false.
(49) It is thus certain that the Apostle Paul was converted in 37 A.D., “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.”137 And so the first meeting of the two Apostles took place in Jerusalem in 39 A.D. The Apostle Paul confirms, in this same epistle,138 that he went up to Jerusalem for the second time “after fourteen years” with the Apostles Barnabas and Titus. It was during this second visit of his that the First Apostolic Council of Jerusalem – concerning the way in which the Gentiles were to be received into the Church – took place.139
And so, after fourteen years, namely from 39 A.D. until 53 A.D., the Apostle Peter is found to be in Jerusalem taking part in the First Apostolic Council. Evidently during the same year he extends to the Apostle Paul and Barnabas – together with John – “the right hand of fellowship,” and afterwards is confronted by the Apostle Paul in Antioch. In 58 A.D., as we previously stated, the epistle to the Romans is written from Corinth, in which the Apostle Paul is sure that no one else at that time had journeyed to Rome.
In 60 A.D. he goes up for the last time to Jerusalem,140 from which the Apostle Peter is obviously absent, because the Apostle Paul only visits James, with whom “all the elders were present.” After being arrested in Jerusalem he is transferred to Caesarea, where he remains in bondage for two years,141 and from which he evidently writes the epistle to the Ephesians. From there he is transported for the first time to Rome, around 62 A.D.
Therefore, in summary, when we take into account the following, is it not made undeniably clear that, the Apostle Peter, being absent from Jerusalem during the Apostle Paul’s last journey there, is truly found to be, during this period, in Babylon of Egypt, from where he writes his first Catholic epistle, and in which he makes no mention of Rome, for the explicit reason that he had not yet traveled there? 1) that the Apostle Peter had knowledge of the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, which was written around 62 A.D., when he wrote his own first Catholic epistle to the Jewish Christians of the Diaspora “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia…”; 2) that shortly before the composition of this epistle, during the Apostle Paul’s last journey to Jerusalem, the Apostle Peter is absent from that city; and 3) that from the writing of the epistle to the Romans (58 A.D.) and afterwards of the epistle to the Ephesians (60-62 A.D.), until the Apostle Paul’s first journey to Rome, during which he was bound and escorted, the Apostle Peter had not once traveled to Rome (as is proved by the detailed account, in the Acts of the Apostles, of the Apostle Paul’s first visit there, which we expanded upon earlier). From the combination of all these witnesses we draw the irrefutable conclusion that the Apostle Peter did not travel to Rome before the Apostle Paul.
In addition, from the combination of the Apostle Paul’s epistles to the Philippians, the Colossians and to Titus, which were undeniably written in Rome during his many year stay there (and in which is found no trace of the Apostle Peter, even though many other names are mentioned in the letter to the Colossians), it is also undoubtedly concluded that (50) during the Apostle Paul’s stay in Rome the Apostle Peter did not travel there, for, as we have previously stated, there existed no reason for him to travel there, inasmuch as the Church of Rome, founded by the Apostle Paul, was flourishing, and that soon after the great persecution of Nero began. Finally, from the second epistle of the Apostle Paul to Timothy, which was written from Rome shortly before the former’s death, that which we developed above is corroborated, namely that the Apostle Peter never traveled to Rome.
In this way the contrary claims of the Papist theologians, as well as the relevant details given by Eusebius, Irenaeus of Lyons, Dionysius of Corinth and Gaius the Presbyter, which these theologians invoke, are proved to be baseless and untrue, and this because these details are obviously based on apocryphal texts and inaccurate sources.
From the same “…Study” by St. Nektarios (pgs. 32-40) we have the following to say regarding these details: “We saw that until the end of 66 A.D. Paul was alive and free in Rome. Because Peter is nowhere mentioned we conclude that he was not in Rome…”
As well, that Peter did not travel to Rome after this, or at least until 81 A.D., is proved by the writings of Eusebius, who contradicts himself. Eusebius, in his third book, chapters one and two and in the first chapter of his fourth book as well as elsewhere, writes that Peter journeyed to Rome and there ordained Linus as first Bishop of Rome. In his second book, chapter twenty-five, he writes that Peter was killed in Rome under Nero. However, in chapter thirteen of book three, he himself writes: “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”.
Let us see what year corresponds to the second year of the reign of Titus, during which Anencletus received his episcopate. Claudius ruled from 40 until 54 A.D. Nero from 54 up to 68 A.D. Vespasian from 69 until 79 A.D. Titus from 79 until 81 A.D. and a third more of that year. So, if we subtract the 12 years of the episcopate of Linus from the year 81 A.D. we get 81-12=69.
So, according to exact chronology and the witness of Eusebius, Linus was ordained during the years 69-70 A.D.
This raises the question, how, in the fourth chapter of the third book, does Eusebius write antithetically, “but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his (Paul) companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown”? How was he ordained by Peter, who according to the Papists, was martyred during the year 66 A.D.?
This supports our assertion that the phrase “was Peter’s successor” should instead read “was Paul’s successor.” These details about the ordination of Linus in 69 or 70 A.D. confirm a second trip to Rome by the Apostle Paul, perhaps after his journey to Spain. In addition it means that he was still alive and therefore was not martyred, along with the Apostle Peter, in 66 A.D. under Nero. That it was Paul and not Peter is also witnessed to by The Didache book LX (60), chapter XLV (45), which allude only to the Apostle Paul and not at all to Peter. (51) The episcopate of Anencletus, according to Eusebius, spanned twelve years.142 “In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the Church of Rome for twelve years.”
According to exact chronology, Titus died, as we stated, in 81 A.D. and the leadership was taken over by Domitian. Thus, if we add 12 to 81 we have 93, the year in which Clement was ordained as the third successor of the Roman Episcopal throne, and still the Papists allege that he also was ordained by the Apostle Peter!
In Eusebius we find the following passage of Irenaeus: “The blessed Apostles, having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus.”143 In addition, in chapter VIII of the same book there is also found another passage of Irenaeus: “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached.”
According to these two passages from the history of Irenaeus we learn seven details: 1) That Peter and Paul co-founded and built the Church of Rome, 2) That both of them ordained Linus as bishop of the Church of Rome, 3) That the Evangelist Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, 4) That he was writing during the time that Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the Church of Rome, 5) That Peter and Paul departed this life simultaneously, 6) That Mark became the interpreter of Peter in Rome 7) That Mark wrote his Holy Gospel after the departure of the Apostles.
Let us see if this is indeed how things stand. Irenaeus states that Peter and Paul founded together the Church of Rome. Irenaeus lived during the second century (140-202 A.D.). He acquired his information from Rome, and he believed the myth about Simon Magus. He writes that indeed there was erected in Rome an edifice in honor of Simon Magus and his magical arts. The acceptance of the myth as a historical truth explains the acceptance of Peter’s traveling in Rome during the reign of Claudius Cesar, because this myth recounts all the struggles of Peter and Paul against Simon Magus, as well as Peter’s journeys there.
Before Irenaeus, Justin the philosopher and martyr, who thrived in the second half of the second century, also believed the myth, having been convinced by the Christians of Rome. Here are the words of Justin: “There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Cζsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: ‘Simoni Deo Sancto’.”
According to the Pseudo-Clementine Writings, Simon Magus predicted that he was going (52) to be honored in Rome as a god, and for his sake they would erect there an edifice. Even though the Pseudo-Clementine literature appeared during this period, the myth of Simon Magus and his persecution at the hands of Peter is much earlier, appearing at the beginning of the second century.
The Acts of the Apostles Peter and Paul and the lost Teaching of Peter are apocryphal works which have their beginnings in the first century. They are products of the Jewish Christians who did not break away from the customs and worship of the Law, and who, because of their devotion to the Jewish religion, warred against the Apostle Paul and his teachings. Some of them later created the heresy of theEbionites, while others joined the Essenes. This is without a doubt the well from which both Justin and Irenaeus drew, and therefore Irenaeus’ information about the founding and building of the Church of Rome by Peter and Paul lacks historical validity.
Let us examine the historical accuracy of the second detail, which tells us that both of the Apostles entrusted the episcopate of the Church of Rome to Linus (where as in book III, chapter IV informs us that Peter alone established Linus as bishop). This detail can be divided into two parts: as a mistaken conclusion drawn from an inaccurate tradition, and as a historical truth. The conclusion was drawn from a false tradition concerning the myth of Simon Magus, while the ordination of Linus as bishop by Paul is historical truth.
The third detail, namely that the Evangelist Matthew wrote in the Hebrew dialect, is only useful to us in as much as it is related to the fourth detail, whereby we are informed that Matthew wrote during the period in which Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the Church of Rome. We already saw that Irenaeus accepted in good faith the myth of Simon Magus as historical fact, and consequently Peter and Paul’s collaboration in Rome, which, as we have already shown, lacks historical validity. So how could the Gospel according to Matthew be written simultaneously with something that never took place, namely the founding of the Church in Rome by both the Apostles Peter and Paul?
The witness of Irenaeus is proved to be incorrect by the Gospel according to Matthew itself, which testifies to having been written during the onset of the Jewish War in 67 A.D., as is apparent from the twenty fourth chapter, verse fifteen, and therefore after the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Close inspection reveals that this detail of Irenaeus is inaccurate, and we cannot therefore base ourselves on this witness, which he nevertheless received in good faith.
As for the fifth detail, that Peter and Paul meet their end at the same time (in Rome), we find no witnesses save apocryphal sources, which are bereft of validity. The witness of Dionysius of Corinth, who reposed around 170 A.D., and who wrote to the bishop of Rome – “You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time.” – is also lacking in validity, as it is drawn from the same apocryphal sources. If this has any truth it is found in the claim that both Peter and Paul preached in Corinth, a fact that is attested to in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, where he rebukes them for the divisions amongst them, each one saying “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” (53) or “I belong to Cephas.”144 However, he adds nothing about the preaching of Peter in Rome. If, despite this, the theologians of Rome have a different opinion, let them render primacy and seniority to the Church of Corinth, for it would not be right for the elder to be deprived while the younger is boasting.
In addition, the witness of Caius the Presbyter, who lived in the beginning of the third century,145 who wrote to Proclus regarding the “trophies (τρόπαια) of the Apostles” (that is, the tombs of the Apostles in Rome), who comes after the witnesses of Irenaeus and Justin (neither of whom related anything about the “trophies”), who comes after the Pseudo-Clementine writings (which were composed to support the ambitions of the Popes), cannot have validity, because those who wrote the Pseudo-Clementine literature could have constructed the “trophies of the Apostles”. Otherwise, there existed the “trophies” of the Apostle Paul (chains), which could be ascribed to both Apostles. In short, the witness of Caius, with the exhibition of the “trophies of the Apostles,” adds nothing.
When Caius speaks of the “trophies” of those who had founded the Church of Rome how is it obvious that he is speaking of Peter? This is what is called in logic, pelitio principii146. In other words, it is necessary to have already proven that Peter was among the founders of the Church of Rome for us to recognize that Caius is commemorating the existence of the Apostle Peter’s tomb in Rome.
So, when he writes of the founders of the Church of Rome, to whom does he refer? Paul and his disciples; for not only the Twelve are called Apostles, but also their fellow workers and disciples. Thus, Luke calls Barnabas an Apostle. Paul, many times, names as Apostles Titus, Timothy and Silas, whereas Clement of Alexandria calls Clement of Rome, who is a contemporary of Caius, an Apostle.
However, the important argument in the minds of those who claim that Peter founded the Church of Rome, namely, that which Caius writes about the “trophies of the Apostles” in Rome, cannot possibly be true because it is in total conflict with the facts.
Caius mentions the “trophies of the Apostles,” which anyone can see at the Vatican or on the Via Ostiensis, in two very conspicuous sites. Would this, however, have been possible during an era when the Christians were hiding for their lives?
If these tombs truly existed, as Caius mentions, they would have been built in the second century, that is, under Trajan or Hadrian, because only then did the Christians enjoy a little freedom. But, if that is the case, why did not Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who wrote around the year 260 A.D., mention anything about the subject? And why did not Ammonius of Alexandria, who wrote his interpretation of the Gospels circa 250 A.D. mention anything? Why did Marcus Minucius Felix (213 A.D.), in his dialogue on religion, write nothing? Likewise, Lucian, presbyter of Antioch, and Dionysius, bishop of Antioch, who wrote around the year 240 A.D., mention nothing.
(54) The witness of Origen regarding the death of Paul in Rome under Nero is refuted by Clement of Rome, who wrote “and come to the extreme limit of the West, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.” Even if, due to its vagueness, we do not take the position that he was martyred in Spain, surely Rome cannot be described by the phrase “extreme limit of the West.”
Neither does the witness of Eusebius, who recounts the death of the two Apostles in Rome, have any validity, because he also, as we already stated, often contradicts himself, and has drawn his facts from unreliable sources. Evidence of this is found in the fact that he relates the myth of Simon Magus as historical fact, while at the same time relating about the death of the two Apostles, apparently rashly accepting every tradition or piece of information as historical truth.
The sixth detail – that Mark was Peter’s interpreter in Rome – is refuted by Holy Scripture itself. It is possible that Mark was Peter’s interpreter, however not in Rome. Rather, Egypt is more likely, as in Egypt they spoke Coptic, Greek and Latin. It is not possible that this took place in Rome because a) Peter never traveled to Rome; and b) as we saw, until 62-63 A.D. Mark was in Egypt with Peter, and then afterwards, as we learned concerning the letters of Paul, he served as Paul’s helper, and no mention is made of Peter. So this detail of Irenaeus is also deprived of its validity by the witness of Scripture; and since it is not supported by the latter, it falls. It seems, however, that this detail includes one truth: Mark was Peter’s interpreter; and since this did not occur in Rome, it was probably in Egypt, which supports our opinion concerning where the first catholic epistle was composed.
The seventh piece of information – that Mark wrote his Gospel after the death of the Apostles – in no way supports the idea that it was written in Rome. In particular, Eusebius’ report “that the work obtained the sanction of his (the Apostle Peter’s) authority”, as recorded in the fifteenth chapter of his second book, is also bereft of historical validity. Behold, the proof: The Gospel according to Matthew was translated into Greek. Comparing the three Gospels, namely the translation of Matthew’s with the those of Luke and Mark, it is shown that the latter had Matthew’s translation in mind while writing. This because forty-two verses of the Gospels according to Mark and Luke are identical with the Gospel according to Matthew. Therefore, Mark composed his Gospel much later.
It is highly likely, if not altogether certain, that he wrote his Gospel in Alexandria, where, in the position of Peter’s interpreter he put in writing that which was being preached, for the benefit of those who had believed. Thus, the witness of Irenaeus, having so many weak points, cannot serve as a foundation on which to erect Papal Primacy. All of the witnesses which we have spoken about have the same validity.
And so, it is nowhere proved that the Apostle Peter traveled to Rome, nor that he preached and died there. Rather the opposite is witnessed to by the Holy Scriptures and Ecclesiastical History.
From this detailed and analytical criticism of the information given by Irenaeus of Lyons, (55) Dionysius of Corinth, Caius the Presbyter of Rome, Origen and Eusebius concerning the Apostle Peter’s journey to Rome and the founding, by him and the Apostle Paul, of the Church of Rome, in our opinion, completely proves that these details are based on erroneous local custom and sources, and moreover, obviously in opposition to the clear and conflicting evidence from Scripture and History.
As we gather from the Pseudo-Clementine Writings, these erroneous sources and traditions were obviously, and very opportunely, fabricated by Papism and put into circulation during the end of the second century, having conceived of the idea to replace the worldly “imperium” and the “Pontifex maximus” of the Roman emperors with something more spiritual and allegedly Christian.
As was only natural, under the general spiritual conditions of the time, and with the difficulties of spiritual communication between the large and distant cities, and with the lack of means to confirm the authenticity of the writings, which at that time were circulating on parchment, a proper, direct and critical analysis of the relative tradition and sources was not possible.
However, even if, despite all of this, we accept that the Apostle Peter journeyed to Rome after, or even before the Apostle Paul (even though the latter is impossible according to that which we have laid out) and that he founded the Church of Rome together with or even before the Apostle Paul, Papism could still find no argument to justify or claim “Primacy” over all the Church, because, as we have already proved, the Apostle Peter had no such “Primacy.” In addition, the possibility that the Church of Rome was founded by him, or even the possibility of his death there, does not convey to the bishop of the Church of Rome any special power or jurisdiction over the whole Church.
Concerning this subject, the ever-memorable Archbishop of Bulgaria, Leon very correctly stresses in the opening of his letter the following:
“If Rome is first because it received the chief bishop, how much more should Antioch have primacy, because, before Rome, the Apostle Peter was bishop of Antioch. Still, if Rome is deemed to be first, because there the Chief of the Apostles reached his end in martyrdom, how much more should Jerusalem take precedence over Rome? Even if the primacy of the sees is a consequence of the quality of the persons, how then does Jerusalem not gloriously prevail over the others? For the common creator Himself and master of Peter and of all people without exception, the first and High Priest, the source of all life and of the High-priesthood, lived there and willingly sacrificed Himself for the salvation of the world. And again, if Rome seeks primacy because of the chief Apostle, Byzantium should be first, because Andrew was the first-called and the elder of his brother (Peter)….”147
After reading the above, your recent presentation of the alleged Holy Relics of the Apostle Peter, unknown for two centuries, strikingly presents the tragic character of your religious system. (56)
XV) THE RING OF THE FISHERMAN
That you, Your Excellency, have no inclination to divest yourself of “Papal Primacy” is shown by the fact that, during your “enthronement,” you were given the “ring of the fisherman,” which you wear, as the alleged successor of the alleged “prince” of the college of the Apostles, the Apostle Peter. The “Pope’s” ring is one of the principle symbols of Papal power. It is called the “ring of the fisherman,” yet it is a gold ring weighing… 35 grams! It depicts St. Peter drawing his net from the water encircled by the name of the “Pope.” Every “Pope” is supposed to be the successor of St. Peter the fisherman. This is how the ring acquired its name.148
XVI) THE PAPAL “THRONAL FEASTS”
Another example of your intransigence regarding “Papal Primacy” are the “Thronal Feasts.” At the outset we should note that recently we have heard a lot about “Thronal Feasts,” namely festal celebrations of local Churches which occur every time the memory of the Saints who founded these Churches is celebrated. However, this form of feast is an innovation and unknown in the history of our Orthodox Church. It was created by Papism to “proclaim from the rooftops” each year your alleged “Petrine succession.” With such ruses you attempt, within Papism, to remind the world of your accursed “Primacy” and your blasphemous “Infallibility,” and also of your petty theocracy of the “Divine State,” with which you are projected to the world not only as a king but also as a “bishop of Rome”!
Nevertheless, as St. Justin Popović has stated, this neo-Papist mindset has, unfortunately, also infiltrated the Orthodox East. Recently, some Orthodox Churches began celebrating their own “Thronal Feasts,” which some try to make into “big events.” However, in Christ’s Church there are no “thrones” that were founded by the Saints, so that we could celebrate them, but positions of ministry, for the service of the people of God, positions dipped in blood and watered with sweat and tears. For this reason we cannot and will not celebrate the “throne” of a bishop! The Holy Bishops of our Orthodox Church never celebrated the event of their election to their Episcopal “throne,” but saw their ministry as a heavy burden and a personal self-emptying. Those who think otherwise should read the fourth chapter of St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, in order to understand what is the true “throne” of the Apostles and their successors throughout time.149
XVII) THE REMOVAL OF THE TITLE OF PATRIARCH OF THE WEST
(57) The final fact, Your Excellency, which proves that you have no plans to set aside the “Primacy of power,” is that you recently abandoned the title of Patriarch of the West. According to some sources, the Annual Pontifical Yearbook “Annuario Pontificio” includes information and facts about all the Papist activities. It is a diptych, a statistical bulletin of information about the hierarchical structure of the Vatican. In this official Yearbook, as is only natural, the “Pope” is referred to with all his official titles. This year, with the resignation of His former Excellency Benedict, it was late in being published. In the publication of the new Pontifical Yearbook of 2013, it is emphasized that you have chosen, from the day of your election, to be referred to with the title “Bishop of Rome.” At the same time, His Excellency, Benedict XVI, is referred to with the title “Supreme Pontiff Emeritus.” In the previous Yearbook of 2012, His former Excellency is not only referred to as “Bishop of Rome” but with all the titles, which have been given to him and for which there has always existed sharp criticism from the Orthodox, such as: “His Holiness Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God,” however, with the removal of the title “Patriarch of the West.” This year, however in the same location is found only the simple: “Francis – Bishop of Rome.” The other titles did not disappear, they are found along with a short biographical note (specifically on page 24), which was blank in the Yearbook of 2012. His former Excellency Benedict’s name is written in Latin “Benedictus” and not in Italian, where as your name is in Italian “Francesco” and not in Latin. In addition, the initials “PP,” which stand for “Pope” appears before the name of His former Excellency, Benedict, where as it is absent from your name. On the facing page of your photograph is found your signature along with your name in English, while, for His former Excellency, is found the Latin “Benedictus PP XVI.” Your Excellency, you have not renounced any of your Papal titles, titles which have never been acceptable to the Orthodox Church, but only wished to place them in a less conspicuous location on the following page. You do not wish to reinstate the title “Patriarch of the West,” following His Emeritus Excellency, Benedict. Of course, from an Orthodox stand point, this title, which is given to you, will be valid only when you will be counted among the Orthodox Patriarchs. Only when you become Orthodox could we speak of title of “Bishop of Rome” and “Patriarch of the West,” not, of course, of those titles which are mentioned in the Papal Yearbook, because these were never acceptable in the history of the Church. The title “Patriarch of the West,” according to the previous answer of the Vatican Secretary regarding the promotion of Christian Unity, is no longer in use. Again, your removal of the title “Patriarch of the West” has the objective of affirming for a second time the Vatican’s claim to Universal Jurisdiction of the “Pope” of Rome, which is reflected in all the other titles. Unfortunately you move heaven and earth to refute all those who would label you a “reformer”! Not only do you not intend to change the slightest thing in Papism, but you are impetuously continuing the hard line of your successors. Regrettably, we are continuously and manifestly confirmed in our convictions by your every move. As a genuine Jesuit, you are sworn to support the Papist institution and, true to your vows, this is what you desire, to realize the grand scheme, to become the spiritual world ruler!150 150 Website «dogma.gr» 10-7-2013. «Ὁ Πάπας δέν ἀποδέχεται τόν τίτλον τοῦ Πατριάρχου τῆς Δύσεως» and «Ὁ πάπας Φραγκίσκος ἠρνήθη (58)
XVIII) PAPISM’S NEW ECCLESIOLOGY
The basis of Papism’s new ecclesiology is found in the encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1965) of Pope John Paul II, who, in essence, repeats the teaching that was formulated in the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio. “It needs be reaffirmed in this regard that acknowledging our brotherhood is not the consequence of a large-hearted philanthropy or a vague family spirit. It is rooted in recognition of the oneness of Baptism and the subsequent duty to glorify God in his work. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism expresses the hope that Baptisms will be mutually and officially recognized. This is something much more than an act of ecumenical courtesy; it constitutes a basic ecclesiological statement.”151
According to the Decree on Ecumenism, concerning baptism, “…men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized” are deemed to be in communion with the “Catholic Church” (Papism) even if “this communion is imperfect” (3a). If those who were baptized Christian, true brothers in Christ, are in communion with the “Church” (Papism), even if they are, in some way, in communion only “in part,” it follows that not only some, but many “elements and endowments,” which build up and give life to the “Church” (Papism) exist outside of its visible boundaries. These “elements” include the “written word of God,” “the life of grace,” “the inner gifts of the Holy Spirit,” and many others (3b).
According to the Latin teaching, before the Second Vatican Council you Papists believed that baptism serves for the remission of sins only within the unity of the Church. Grace is suspended, because of the state of schism or heresy, and it is active only on entrance into the Church. The schismatic and heretical groups possess nothing more than their schism and heresy. The mysteries (sacraments) belong to the Church. After Vatican II the above teaching changed, and from then until the present day, the Papists deem that the mystery (sacrament) of baptism produces all of its fruits and is a source of grace even when it is performed by officially separated schismatics and heretics. Even those who are found in a state of heresy and schism enjoy the “life of grace” and “incorporation in the system of salvation.” The schismatic bodies themselves are deemed as “means of salvation.”
In believing that the Holy Spirit works in this way even outside of the Church you come into complete contradiction with Patristic unanimity, according to which, there exists no mysteriological (sacramental) grace (purifying, illuminating and deifying) outside of the Church. The Second Vatican Council expanded the Church in order to include even the very schismatics and heretics. In this way it cannot be said that the Holy Spirit works only inside the framework of the Church. A schismatic and heretical baptism is now regarded as fruitful, because it is the one baptism into the one Body, which is the work of the Holy Spirit. This means, however, that you have changed the criteria that are used in discerning the Church. The Church, as a mysteriological (sacramental) unity, is, for you, no longer found in an identity, which is founded upon the unity of faith, apostolic 151 (59) succession, priesthood and the mysteries (sacraments). This Church no longer holds exclusive rights to these elements, which are, in truth, individual parts of the whole, establishing instead an incomplete communion, semi-autonomous and invisible.
Thus, on your part, you Papists have three new radical acknowledgements: 1) that heretical baptisms are to be considered as being in the “one baptism” (and fruitful), 2) that the heretical assemblies constitute “Churches” and 3) that these “Churches” have within them the fruit-bearing energy of the Holy Spirit. These three acknowledgements are preparing the way for the fourth and final acknowledgement that UnaSancta is comprised of Papism and the schismatic and heretical assemblies.
However, your creation of another, new “Church,” also entails the creation of another, new Christ. Every alteration or transformation of the Faith or of the Tradition of the Gospel is the making of another Jesus, another Church. The Apostle Paul writes: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.”152 Saint James, the brother of the Lord stresses: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”153 Finally, St. Tarasios, Patriarch of Constantinople points out: “Evil is evil, especially in matters of the Church, as far as dogmas are concerned, it is all the same to err to a small degree or to a great degree, because in one case or the other the law of God is broken.”154
Francis A. Sullivan claims that “one can think of the universal Church as a communion, at various levels of fullness, of bodies that are more or less fully churches…. it is a real communion, realized at various degrees of density or fullness, of bodies, all of which, though some more fully than others, have a truly ecclesial character”.155 That is to say, here we have Christ by degrees.
In accordance, however, with the Orthodox teaching, a Church that is realized by degrees of fullness is not the Church, because Christ is all and in all. For Papism the True Faith is not the criterion for the recognition of the Church of Christ.
The central pillars of this new Latin Ecclesiology are the following: 1) The terms “schism” and “heresy” are no longer to be enforced; 2) The Holy Spirit is given to and sanctifies the schismatic assemblies; 3) schismatic/heretical assemblies are to be recognized as churches and ecclesiastical communities; 4) the Church includes all “baptized,” who participate by “degrees”; 5) a recognition of “degrees” of communion, including full and incomplete; 6) that the confession of faith is no longer essential in order for one to belong to the Church.
Joseph Ratzinger, His former Excellency, Benedict XVI, working within the above framework, claims that “Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature (60) which the individual is presented with as his church, and in which he lives as a believer, not a heretic.”156 We have here a passing from heresy toecclesiality.
This “Communio” Ecclesiology of Vatican II is in complete contradiction to the Orthodox Eucharistic Ecclesiology.
According to Orthodox Eucharistic Ecclesiology, the line of unity is clearly drawn with “lines of blood,” which includes as many as partake in the Common Cup of the Blood of Christ. The Mysteriological(Sacramental) foundation is not found in one mystery (sacrament) or the another, but in all of the mysteries (sacraments) together, united in a common life and in a common Cup.
According to the “Communio” Ecclesiology of Vatican II, the lines of the unity of the Church are drawn first with the water of baptism. Among the baptized there exists a fundamental unity or “communio.” In this way, the distinction is not made between those who are in complete unity and those who have no “communio,” but between full and partial “cummunio” (UR 3). According to Cardinal Walter Kasper, theMysteriological (sacramental) foundation of “communio” is “communio” in one baptism, with the “pinnacle” of “communio” being participation in the Eucharist, which is reserved for those who are in full communion.
What, however, is “Communio” Ecclesiology? It is a composite reality in the form of a community, the unity of which has developed through many and diverse factors. This means that there is an open possibility for the elements that comprise the Church to be present even in Christian communities outside of the “Catholic Church” (of Papism) and to give to these communities the character of a Church. Therefore, the one Church of Christ can also be present outside of the “Catholic Church” (of Papism) and it is truly present, and in fact visible, to the degree to which the factors and elements are present that create unity, and consequently, the Church.157
According to the above Latin perception, we have one Church, however on many levels. The primary level is the precise expression of the Church, namely Papism, in which allegedly exists the Church of Christ and in which there exists full communion. The secondary levels are the “deficient Churches,” such as Orthodoxy, Monophysitism and Protestantism, which are deprived of communion with the “Pope” of Rome, since they do not recognize “Papal Primacy” and “Infallibility” and for this reason they are in an imperfect communion. His former Excellency, Benedict XVI, expressing the above Latin perception of the Church, described the Orthodox Church as deficient.
What is the new image of the Church in this new Latin ecclesiology? Let us imagine a system of concentric circles, which comprises the Church of all the baptized and even of the non-baptized. In the centre of all the circles is Papism, which is the precise expression of the Church of Christ. Closer to the centre is Orthodoxy. After that follows Monophysitism. Further away is Anglicanism. Further still is Protestantism, and furthest (61)are the righteous, which can be found not only among the baptized, but also among the non-baptized.
Cardinal Charles Morerod writes that “‘separated brethren’ are rightly considered to be ‘invincibly ignorant’ – i.e. unable to know Jesus Christ and/or the Roman Catholic Church as the One Church. Consequently, according to their righteousness and participation in some sacraments, chief of which is Baptism, those who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church still belong to the One Church in a variety of ways, according to a system of concentric circles: the Greek and the Russians first…”158
So what does it mean for one to belong to the Church? According to Cardinal Charles Journet, “Where God ‘touches’ someone, where the Holy Spirit leads a person towards a future conversion, the Church is already present… the sacraments given outside the Roman Catholic Church…have a natural tendency to invest some corporeal appearances. This means that every action of the Spirit is part of the process of building the Body of the Church, which is thus always visible though we do not always recognize it.…[T]he frontier of the Church crosses our heart: everyone is a member of the Church in the measure that he receives divine grace.”159
According, however, to the Orthodox teaching about the distinction of the Divine Energies, the natural energy of God is completely simple. However, this simple energy “is indivisibly divided among individual creatures” (μερίζεται ἀμερίστως ἐν μεριστοῖς). This means that the energy of God is one, but with many effects: the creative energy of God, the providential energy, the purifying, the illuminating and the deifying energy. “Between these forms of the one and only energy of God there exists no absolute identity. If they were absolutely identical all of creation would participate e.g. in the glorifying (deifying) energy of God,” according to Fr. John Romanides. The above teaching, which is missing from Papism, shows they are lacking in this direct spiritual experience.
Concerning the distinction in actions of the Holy Spirit, Morerod and Journet assert that every action of the Spirit is part of the process of building the Body of the Church. However, St. Diadochos of Photikiwrites that, “before holy baptism, grace encourages the soul towards good from the outside, while Satan lurks in its depths, trying to block all the intellect’s ways of approach to the divine. But from the moment that we are reborn through baptism, the demon is outside, grace is within.”160
The chief characteristics of the Vatican’s ecclesiology are: 1) Communio ecclesiology; 2) baptismal basis; 3) the view that the Church exists outside of the Eucharistic Gathering; 4) full and incomplete communion; 5) the members of the whole make up the universal communion; 6) unity, which is expressed on different levels; 7) the elements, which are realized in division; and 8) baptism, which constitutes initiation and not a return.
On the exact opposite side we find the chief characteristics of Orthodox ecclesiology, (62) which are: 1) Eucharistic ecclesiology; 2) Eucharistic basis; 3) the fixed teaching that the Church does not exist outside of the Eucharistic Gathering; 4) full and not partial communion; 5) the catholic communion is absolutely identical with the Eucharistic, local communion; 6) unity, which is expressed as absolute identity; 7) the non-ecclesiastical elements are in separation; and 8) baptism constitutes repentance and return.161
XIX) PAPISM AND THE WORLD WIDE COUNCIL OF “CHURCHES” (W.C.C.)
Your Excellency sent a warm message to the participants of the 10th General Assembly of the so-called World Council of “Churches” in Busan, Korea, through your representative Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. In your message you expressed your intense pastoral concern for the results of the Assembly and reconfirmed Papism’s commitment to continue its longstanding collaboration with the World Council of “Churches.”162
Papism, asserting for itself, until this very day, ecclesiological exclusivity, being responsible for the schism, did not make the mistake of participating as a member of the so-called World Council of “Churches,” becoming one of the many “churches,” but participates in the capacity of an “observer.” Verbally, however, and hypocritically, it praises the Ecumenical Movement, which it blesses as the preparation for unity with the Rome of Peter and the “Pope.” It especially commends and gloats over the participation of the Orthodox Church, which in its involvement has abased and annulled itself as the only true incarnation and continuation of Una Sancta, surrendering its own place and identity to the schismatic and heretical Rome.163
The roots of Ecumenism should be sought in the realm of Protestantism, in the middle of the 19th century, as an attempt by the Protestant world, split up in to many different offshoots and sects, to rediscover unity. At that time, some “Christian confessions” seeing that people were leaving their groups due to growing disinterest in religion and organized anti-religious movements, were forced to rally and cooperate with each other. This unifying activity of theirs received an organized structure, as the Ecumenical Movement, in the 20th century, and chiefly in 1948 with the establishment in Amsterdam of the so-called World Council of “Churches,” now headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, which is in essence the World Council of Heresies, of Lucifer and of falsehood, rather than a council of “Churches” (W.C.C.).164
One of the tools used by Ecumenism in order to achieve its aims is Syncretism, that deadly foe of the Christian faith, which is promoted by the so-called “World Council of Churches,” or rather “World Council of Heresies,” as it has rightly been characterized. “Syncretism is the relativizing of religions and religious ideas. It is a Pan-ecumenical (63) religious synthesis and conjoining of the most antithetical and dissimilar elements.”165
In the realm of the “World Council of Churches” and its theological dialogues, issues are introduced and discussed, which confute the Gospel and tradition of the Church itself – Christianity itself – issues such as the priesthood of women, “marriage” of homosexuals and various commemorative idolatrous demonstrations of faith and worship.166
XX) THE ORDINATION/PRIESTHOOD OF WOMEN
Late in 2013 rumors were flying that you had the intention of electing the first woman to the cardinalate. Vatican representatives were, of course, quick to dismiss such speculation calling it “nonsense.” Are these simple rumors, or a progressive “Pope” testing the waters? Whatever the case may be we shall take this opportunity to set forth the Orthodox teaching on the subject of women and the priesthood.
Christ has especially honored women, the female sex, not only in the person of His mother, the Most-Holy Theotokos, who was chosen from among all humans to give birth to Him, and not only because He blessed women to be the first to learn of the Resurrection (for it was to them that He first appeared), but also because He has shown by His deeds and works that women have great ethical and spiritual grandeur – often surpassing men. Many times we find within the Synaxarion of our Church, holy womenmartyrs and venerable ascetic saints, who surpass the supposedly “strong” men in their devotion to God. The Holy Fathers of our Church, when speaking of the fragile, delicate and sensitive female figures, often wonder how these women with their female nature and sensitivity – which one would think that at the first difficulty would break down – have shown such endurance and such dedication, not only during martyrdom, but during monastic ascesis and were proved to be superior than men.
In the Gospel passage for the Sunday of the Samaritan Woman167 we read about the wonder of the disciples, who “marveled that he was talking with a woman.” It was prohibited by the Mosaic Law for men to give honor and worth to women and even to consider them equals or to speak with them. Of course, there exists in the Jewish tradition, in the collection of the Jewish fathers, from the book Sayings of the Fathers, a “proverb” which says that it would be better for the words of the law to burn and be lost rather than for women to be heard. There also exist many other examples of the denigration of the female sex, not only in Judaism, but also in ancient Greek thought. Orthodox Christianity, however, is that which not only puts men and women on the same level –“there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”168 – but, as we have just related, has often raised women to a much higher degree of holiness.
And let us note at this point that the equality of men and women cannot be judged by the (64) profession or occupation which one has, as is claimed by the foolish feminist movement, which only creates confusion and upsets entire communities. For just as the male nature is created by the Holy Triune God for certain occupations and work (as evidenced by physical structure of the male sex,) in the same way the delicate and sensitive female nature is suitable and created by God for its own specific tasks, especially motherhood. There exists no holier institution or task more sanctified than motherhood. And so equality does not consist in the profession which one holds in this life, but rather in that men and women are able to attain to the same spiritual heights, in equality of holiness and the virtues, if they both choose to understand the Gospel and dedicate themselves to God, and if they can both attain to His Kingdom. What is this present life with its various differentiations and inequalities? Do there not exist inequalities between men throughout the world? Does there not exist inequality between the two sexes besides the differences in physical function? However, both men and women can equally achieve sainthood – and here is found the great arena of holiness. Whichever woman desires to surpass men, the door is open before her to the path of virtue and holiness. Today, however, women are incited by evil and demonic voices to other types of equality with men – to equality in corruption and sin – which have trivialized the female sex.
Of course, the Orthodox Church is vehemently and categorically opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood, as shown by the following rich theological arguments.
The entrance of the Mother of God into the Holy of Holies is truly an unprecedented and unrepeatable event in history: for the first time a woman was allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies, and ever since then women have not been allowed to enter into the Holy Altar, that is, the Sanctuary. This prohibition took on a synodal character with the seal of the Holy Canons. In the service of The Salutations of the Entrance of the Mother of God into the Temple, in the oikos which begins with the letter “M,” the holy hymnographer relates: “Let no woman dare to enter into the Holy Altar, where only she who is holy among women entered, into the Holy of Holies, where only the High Priest entered but once a year.”
Also, in the oikos which begins with the letter “Ψ,” it is written: “Rejoice, you who only are worthy to enter into the Holy Altar, Rejoice, for you only are allowed to dwell in the Sanctuary.”169
The 69th Holy Canon of the 6th Holy and Ecumenical Council stipulates: “It is not permitted to a layman to enter the sanctuary.” The Sanctuary is set apart for the clergy. For this reason the Canon prevents the laity from entering therein. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite makes this note: “Hence let priests and confessors be induced to see to it that the unlawful custom prevailing in many places be cut out – the custom, I mean, of letting laymen come into the Holy Bema, which, failing to distinguish between priests and laymen, causes the latter to incur the penalty which befell King Ahaz, who, though a layman, undertook to perform the functions of those in holy orders. For they too, in such a case, are in a way usurping the functions of priests by entering the place allotted to (65) priests.”170
The priesthood, as is well known, springs from Christ Himself, namely from His priestly office, and for this reason He Himself is called the Great High Priest. The priesthood of Christ was prefigured in the Old Testament, as much by the priestly tribe of Levi as by Melchizedek, about whom the Apostle Paul speaks in his epistle to the Hebrews. Christ the High Priest delivered over the priesthood, ordaining the Holy Apostles; and they in turn “laid their hands upon”171 other men worthy of the priesthood, and not on women, as mistakenly happens with the heretical parasynagogues of Protestantism, especially in those of the Anglicans, Lutherans and the Reformed, who, influenced by the foolish feminist movement, allow women to participate in the mystery (sacrament) of the priesthood, which, unfortunately, even ecumenist Orthodox academic “theologians” support. In opposition to these fallacies stands the uninterrupted succession of the priesthood, which has continued throughout the centuries right down to our age, and will continue to do so until the end of the ages. For this reason the Orthodox Church speaks about apostolic succession.
George Mantzaridis, Professor Emeritus of Christian Ethics at the Theological School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, notes:
“The interest in this subject on the part of Christian ethics is found chiefly in the opinion that the denial of ordination to women is connected in some way to a general denigration of them in the Church. This view, however, overlooks some basic elements, which are related to the liturgical superiority of women in the life and teaching of the Church. And first of all it brushes aside the leading role of woman in the salvation of humans and the crushing of the Devil. The enmity between humans and the Devil is chiefly enmity between woman and the Devil. It is, of course, characteristic that we read of the ‘seed’ of Eve, which would crush the Devil.172 Eve received the Protevangelium of salvation and the Mother of God accepted the annunciation of the Divine Incarnation.
“And so, woman, who played the leading role in the fall, now plays the leading role in the restoration of humankind. Man is deceived along with woman into the fall and goes along with her to the restoration. The leading role is not found in man, but in woman. In both cases woman leads and man follows. More specifically, the Mother of God becomes coresponsible for the Divine Incarnation, along with God Himself. She lends to God human nature, which becomes the beginning of the new creation. From this view, the Mother of God is ‘another High Priest, after the first High Priest Christ.’173 The preclusion, however, of women from the mystery of the priesthood has actual and symbolic meaning. Woman cooperates in the mystery of salvation, while man ministers. Priests were widely known throughout the pre-Christian world outside of Israel, especially in the religions of the Greeks and Romans. These religions came in direct contact not only with the Church but also with Israel. For this reason the absence of priestesses in the Judeo-Christian world seems odd, from a social point of view, where, of course, the situation of woman was (66) more favorable. In addition, throughout all of Christian literature, where most of the ecclesiastical issues are presented, never is there brought up the issue of priestesses. Only within the gnostisizing heresy of Montanism were women accepted into the ranks of bishops and presbyters, something which St. Epiphanius of Cyprus characterizes as an ‘idol-making occupation’ and a ‘diabolical undertaking.’174
“These characterizations of St. Epiphanius should not be seen as chance statements, but representative of the position of the Church towards the mysteriological priesthood of women. The bishops and the presbyters had, from the beginning, not only a liturgical but also a symbolical position in the body of the Church. They exist ‘as a type of the Father’ or ‘as a type of God.’175
“Whereas both men and women enter indiscriminately into the ‘royal priesthood,’176 the mysteriological priesthood is undertaken only by men. The presence of priestesses would indicate the existence of female divinities, as was the case with the pre-Christian religions. The denial of idolatry, which also necessitates the denial of divinities of both sexes, goes hand in hand with the absence of priestesses. The Church had only female deacons, who fulfilled practical liturgical needs and not priestesses with mysteriological priesthood of symbolical character, which are characterized as an ‘idol-making occupation’ or a ‘diabolical undertaking,’ namely idolatry. It is also not by chance that Montanism, besides the priesthood of women, preserved other idolatrous elements, while its introducer, Montanus, was originally a priest of the goddess Cybele. But also in our own days the promotion of women to the priesthood is not unrelated to the promulgation of neo-gnostic and neo-pagan ideas, which mark the general spirit of our age.”177
There exist many other arguments against the ordination of women, which we shall proceed to cite, as recorded by Christos Livanos.178 The Ecumenical Patriarchate also organized an Inter-Orthodox Symposium in Rhodes during the autumn of 1998 with the topic “The impossibility of the special [mysteriological] priesthood of women.”
1) The heart of the truth, that only men should be ordained to the priesthood, is found in God’s command in the Old Testament “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.”179
2) The priesthood, according to the Old Testament, was given only to men.
3) Christ did not choose any woman as His Apostle and His twelve Apostles were men.
4) Judas, they betrayer, was not replaced with a woman, but with the man, Matthias.180
5) At the Mystical Supper, Christ only called the Twelve and to them only did He hand (67) over the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist.
6) Christ gave the command to baptize “all the nations” only to His Apostles and not to the wider circle of His disciples, which was also made up of women.181
7) The power to “bind and loose sins” was give by Christ only to His Apostles and not to women.182
8) The All-Holy Virgin, even if she came from, according to St. Germanus of Constantinople, “a priestly lineage, the tribe of Aaron, a royal and prophetic root,”183 did not receive the priesthood. Her Son Himself did not include her among the Apostles.
9) The Apostles never ordained women.
10) The Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians: “the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak,”184 and to the Apostle Timothy: “I permit no woman to teach.”185 How then shall a woman be ordained if the Lord186 Himself forbids them to “teach,” something which is an inseparable part of Divine Worship and one of the basic duties of presbyters and bishops?
11) A presbyter should be “the husband of one wife,”187 the Apostle councils, without however adding the reverse, namely the “wife of one husband.”
12) The bishop “stands in the place and is a type of Christ.” Christ is a man. Is a woman able to stand in the place and as a type of the man Christ?
13) A priest is “alter Christus,” another Christ. Christ is the Bridegroom, the Church His Bride. Are we able to consider a woman a Bridegroom? Can we dare symbolize the sublime relationship between Christ and the Church with the perverted relationship of a homosexual couple? This is exactly what those heterodox, who grant the priesthood to women, are doing.
14) The witnesses of Holy Tradition, which the Protestants do not accept, is opposed to the ordination of women, inasmuch as for 2014 years now all of the bearers of the priesthood were and are men.
15) The spiritual firmament of the Church is adorned by a cloud of holy women such as the Myrrh-bearers, the equal-to-the-Apostles Helen and Photini, as well as the holy mothers of the Great Fathers of the Church. None of these were ministers of the Divine Mysteries. None of the ancient women deacons or the nuns throughout the ages demanded to take upon themselves the rank of the priesthood. (68)
16) The Didache is clear and emphatic: “We do not permit our ‘women to teach in the Church,’ but only to pray and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach…But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of a priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of the Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ.”188
17) Tertullian writes: “It is not allowed for a women to speak in the Church neither to teach nor to anoint nor the perform the prothesis nor to claim for herself any rank, which men have, or a priestly ministry.”189
18) St. Epiphanius of Cyprus asks: “To whom then is it not clear that it is not only the doctrine and the manner of the demons, but also an endeavor of insanity? Because, in no way did a woman ever become a priest of God.”190
19) St. John Chrysostom councils: “the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also,” adding that “The divine law indeed has excluded women from the ministry, but they endeavor to thrust themselves into it.”191
XXI) THE “CANONIZATION” OF POPES
A “Church” without “saints” and especially without “newly-revealed saints” cannot exist! You, over at the “City-State of God,” are aware of this, and wanting to appear as a “Church” you have fired-up the “saint-making-machine”! We read in this relevant article: “Pope John Paul II, who reposed in 2005, will be declared a saint faster than any other of his modern predecessors. The Vatican, in secret proceedings, verified a mysterious miracle, which they had kept a secret to this day. It is said that the Pope healed a woman from Costa Rica, who was suffering from serious brain damage and was a step away from the grave. The Holy See has not officially announced details about the miracle, but specialists reported about the miracle working power of the Pope, as well as the relatives of the woman, who prayed in his memory for the dying woman and she recovered, according a report in the Telegraph. The Catholic Church demanded an investigation into the incident and the doctors confirmed that science could not cure the woman, and that the fact could not be explained scientifically. According to an official representative of the Vatican a committee of theologians has examined the miracle. Now the issue will be handed over to a committee of Cardinals and ultimately to Pope Francis himself. John Paul is expected to be canonized in October on the 35th anniversary of his election to the Papacy. If all goes well, an official announcement is expected in July, exactly eight years after his death in 2005.” And so, on September 30, 2013 Your Excellency announced that “Pope” John Paul II, Wojtyła, the Polish Pontiff, who was the leader of Papism for twenty-seven years (1978-2005) and whose tenure saw the collapse of communism, as (69) well as “Pope” John XXIII (1958-1963), who called the reforming Second Vatican “Council” and oversaw sweeping reformations for the modernization of Papism, even though only one miracle of his has been verified after his death, will be declared “saints” on April 27th, 2014.192
Firstly, the characterizations “secret proceedings” and “mysterious miracle” alone manifestly reveal the secret intentions of another “canonization” of the shady “Holy See”!
Secondly, it is not possible for saints to exist within a heresy. A heretic and especially a “Pope” who is not Orthodox, who does not have the Orthodox faith, but instead is burdened down by myriad heresies, especially those of “Primacy” and “Papal Infallibility,” cannot be a saint.
Thirdly, a heretic cannot be a saint because he does not have “right-practice” (ὀρθοπραξία), and is not living the Orthodox Christian life.
And fourthly, the deifying and uncreated energy, the uncreated divine Grace of the Holy Trinity is what “makes saints.” Since you, the Papists, accept as an official dogmatic teaching the heretical theory regarding created grace, who then will produce saints? And due to the fact that you found yourself at a dead end, you replaced the uncreated divine Grace with “Papal infallibility,” and gave the Pope the power to “make” saints at will.
Saint John Chrysostom says that “As many as have the true faith and a righteous life are saints, even if they do not work wonders, and even if they do not cast out demons.” And St. Symeon the New Theologian stresses: “For all the praise and blessed joyfulness of the Saints is constituted by the following: namely in Orthodox faith and a praiseworthy life, and from the gift and charismata of the Holy Spirit. The former is a result of the latter. Because when one lives righteously and in a God-loving manner with an Orthodox mindset and is given Grace by God and glorified with the gift of the Holy Spirit then the result is praise and blessings not only from all the faithful of the Church but also from its teachers. If there is not a constant deposit of faith and works it is impossible for the presence of the venerable and divine Spirit to be achieved, nor for someone to receive its gifts.”193
In the Orthodox Church, Your Excellency, we do not “make” saints; rather, we recognize and declare them to be saints. The work of “making” a saint belongs exclusively to the Holy Triune God Himself. God “makes” saints, not man, not the “Pope.” The Synod intervenes to proclaim the already existent and evident sainthood proved by his miracles, not to “make” the saint, which is your own Frankish tradition.194The terms “making a (70) saint” and “canonization” are theologically unacceptable, granted that they presuppose juridical and ecclesiastical views which are foreign to the Orthodox tradition.
With the term “recognize” we mean the special acceptance and honor in Christ, which spontaneously is given by the fullness of the Church to certain reposed members, which are set apart by their God-fearing, virtuous life and their dedication to God.
In the Orthodox Church the only criteria for the recognition of one of its reposed members as a saint is the recognition of the faithful, the “vox populi,” the voice of the people, with the required presuppositions that he had the Orthodox Faith and mindset, that he was Orthodox and neither a heretic nor heterodox, that he had lived a holy (Ὀρθοπραξία) or martyric life, that he had performed miracles in life and after his repose, and finally, that his relics after death are incorrupt and fragrant, often streaming myrrh. These requirements, according to Church tradition, are considered essential even to this day.
After the recognition of the saint by the consciousness of the Church, the ecclesiastical authority records the saint in its diptychs, to be commemorated in the Divine Liturgy and designates a yearly feast day in his memory, which is usually the day of the saint’s repose. The icon and the relics of the saint are also put out for public veneration and a liturgical service is composed in his honor.
It would be a substantial oversight if we failed to mention the tragic and appalling fact that you, Your Excellency, in Papism, have “canonized” murderers as saints. This is demonstrated by the “canonization,” by “Pope” John Paul II, of Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, who was sent to Yugoslavia and Serbia during the Second World War (1942- 1944) in order to forcibly convert the Orthodox people to Papism. ThisStepinac, after facilitating the killing of 800,000 Orthodox who refused to be converted by the Latins, was awarded for his demonic work and, after his death, “canonized”!195
In addition we would like to stress that our Holy Orthodox Church is reproached by you, the heretic Latins, and slanderously accused of not producing one new Saint, nor any miracles, since the schism of 1054, having left the western “church,” that is your Frankish parasyagogue. All the while, you, having no new true saints to present, manufacture sculpted “saints” from stone, wood and metal. Look, however, at our Holy Orthodox Church, the spotless bride of Christ the Savior, crowned and adorned, as with precious stones and priceless pearls, with the Holy New-Martyrs, Hierarchs, and Venerable Asetics, whose holiness is confirmed by the incorruption and unspeakable fragrance emitted by their Holy Relics, and by the infinite miracles which they perform. This proves that you schismatic and heretical Latins, calling yourself wise, are, in fact, fools and because of this, and because you were puffed up with satanic pride, your minds were darkened and you were made blind. Because, while having eyes you do not see and while having ears you do not hear nor do you perceive the voice of the Lord, Who says “He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them,”196 and in (71) this way wandering and deluded you stumble along in the darkness.197 For this reason the Holy Patriarch of Jerusalem (1660 A.D.) Nektarios, that blazing zealot of the Truth, wanting to stop the prating mouths of the Latins and to prove you liars and slanderers, enumerated many new Saints of the Orthodox Catholic Church after the schism and narrated their many wondrous new miracles. The blessed Nektarios, as well as the blessed Dositheos of Jerusalem,198 wrote about Saint Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, the preacher of the uncreated divine Grace and beholder of the uncreated Light, whom you Papists consider a “heretic,” so much so that on the island of Santorini, during the second Sunday of the Great Lent, when the memory of St. Gregory is celebrated, the Franks purposely sent out children in a boat and who, while sailing, were clapping their hands and shouting “anathema to Palamas! If Palamas is a Saint let him drown us!” The Frankish children blasphemed in this way and, oh strange wonder, oh the holiness and boldness before God of the divine Gregory, the moment when they were blaspheming, without a storm and in calm weather, the boat sank with all aboard, according to their own blasphemous words, “if he is a Saint, let him drown us.”199
It would be very advantageous for you to ask the “Bishop” of your religious community in Corfu, John Spiteri, what happened on December 12, 1716 when the Venetian governor of Corfu, Andrew Pisani, wanted to install an altar in the Church of the Wonderworker, St. Spyridon. Today, the empty place in the all-holy temple declares the truth!
No one can forget the worldwide protests from the United Nations and from entire parliaments, such as those of the Netherlands, Ireland and Australia, against the thousands of cases of heinous sexual abuse by Papist religious ministers.
The revelations about the ethical stench of your heretical Papist parasynagogue have no end. These awful scandals which beleaguer the “Holy See” led to the resignation of “Christ’s vicar on earth,” His former Excellency, Benedict XVI, followed not long after by the resignation of Cardinal Keith O’ Brien, “archbishop” of Scotland. The reason for his resignation are the harsh accusations, by four of his Papist “priests,” of “inappropriate relations” which have been going on for thirty years now! Of course, his resignation, which His former Excellency, Benedict XVI, accepted, had such an urgent character that Great Britain was left without a representative in the conclave at Your Excellency’s election. The website “The News” writes: “One of the priests reports how he had an inappropriate relation with O’Brien. Another states that he was 18 years old when the Cardinal ‘approached him inappropriately’ after a night of prayer. A third announced that (72) he had been called to O’Brien’s residence in order to ‘get to know him better,’ where after the consumption of alcohol, O’Brien ‘approached him inappropriately’”! Even if it is not directly stated what kind of “inappropriate relations” the “eminent prince” of the Papistparasynagogue had, we can only imagine! And these are not isolated incidents but an unending chain of sexual scandal that has wound itself around the globe!200
His former Excellency, Benedict XVI, denied on September 24, 2013 that he had tried to cover up sexual abuse of children by Papist “priests.” His statements were included in a ten-page letter to the Italian author and mathematician, Piergiorgio Odifreddi, who had written a book about the problems that Papism was facing before His former Excellency’s resignation. The Italian newspaper La Repubblicapublished some extracts of the letter: “As for what you say about the moral abuse of minors by priests, I can, as you know, only note it with deep dismay. I have never tried to hide these things,” related His former Excellency, Benedict. Reality, however, contradicts him because he has been accused of covering up such deplorable scandals while he was Archbishop of Milan. This is the first time that His former Excellency, Benedict, has personally answered these accusations of sexual abuse of minors by priests and the first time, since his resignation, that something which he had written or said has been published.201
Another resounding incident of pederasty, and by a papal nuncio at that (a representative of the Vatican), is the following: “The Vatican has recalled its ambassador to the Dominican Republic after he was accused of sexually abusing children. Two local TV channels broadcast allegations of paedophilia against Archbishop Josef Wesolowski, who had been nuncio, or ambassador, in the capital, Santo Domingo, for nearly six years. A spokesman for the Catholic church in the Dominican Republic, Monsignor Agripino Nunez Collado, said that “The law is for everyone” and there was no excuse for anyone who violated the law, “not citizenship, not faith, not creed, not politics, not religion,” saying again “The law is for all.” Wesolowski will be investigated over the charges of paedophilia by the Holy See, as well as by prosecutors in the Dominican Republic.”202 Naturally not a word was heard about defrocking the “naughty Archbishop,” but only legal repercussions, as is the case with the thousands of pederast “Frankish Fathers,” who canonically “serve” in the Papist parasynagogue.203 All of this because of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and the defiance of Holy Canon XIII of the Sixth Holy Ecumenical Council, by establishing the anti-biblical general celibacy of the Clergy, and the voice of the Lord, Who says “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given”! (Matt. 19:11)
XXIII) THE SHAMEFUL PASSION OF HOMOSEXUALITY
(73) Lively discussion on a universal level was prompted by Your Excellency’s statements when you opened up the topic of homosexuality, that shameful and disgusting passion, which is the zenith of all carnal sins, and radically changed the course of the discussion in comparison to your predecessors. The Vatican itself, perhaps unintentionally, reveals the unbelievable dimension of its ethical stench! The profound ethical crisis, which plagues the “City-State of God,” is not only a secret no longer, but a fact known by all. As for Your Excellency, you who wish to be “bishop of the throne of Old Rome,” it seems that you were forced to admit the incurable ethical abscess of the “Holy See,” which desires to pose as a “church” and the “one true church” at that, characterizing the actual Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church, as “deficient”!
Your revelations completely confirm the reports of many daily newspapers and periodicals that within the Vatican there exists a homosexual lobby and a current of corruption. Daily newspapers and periodicals had published these reports when His former Excellency Benedict suddenly resigned. At that time there had been revelations of the laundering of dirty money by the Vatican, transfers of money to German banks, and mafia-like methods to serve its interests. You, Your Excellency, proceeded with the above revelations on May 12, 2013. According to correspondences and reports of the newspaper “Democracy” (Δημοκρατία) on June 13, 2013: “It seems that sexuality doesn’t disappear when one dons the cassock, and this is confirmed once again by the ‘Pope’s’ own mouth.”
Also confirmed is the “economic anarchy” on the fringes of Papism. According to reports by Catholic media, which the Vatican has not refuted, you confirmed the existence of a “gay lobby” and a “current of corruption” in the Vatican, marking the strangest acknowledgement by the Vatican in recent history, especially after scandals of pederasty with “priests” of the Vatican playing the leading roles. To be precise, you, Your Excellency, during a private audience with a representative of the Latin American Conference of Religious (CLAR), spoke regarding various “burning issues in the Vatican,” including problems within the Curia, the central administration of the “Church,” which was recently found at the center of a corruption scandal. These papal admissions were made in the Spanish language, according to the Chilean Papist website “Reflexion y Liberacion.” Once again, here we find the conviction that there is a need for the reexamination of human sexuality within the sphere of religion, as well as the other human weaknesses. Your words “corroborate” this: “In the Curia there are holy people, truly holy people. But there is also a current of corruption … They speak of a ‘gay lobby,’ and that is true, it is there. We need to see what we can do…”204
During your return trip from Brazil (July 29th, 2013), while speaking in-flight to reporters, you issued a “liberal” (!) statement, in relation to the stance, which was held in the past in Papism, regarding the issue of homosexuals. When a reporter asked you for your opinion on homosexuals you answered: “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge this behavior?” In addition, you added that homosexuals should not be marginalized, but on the contrary should be incorporated (74) into the community. You took sides against discrimination against homosexuals, mentioning, however, the Papist policy, which states that, even if homosexual orientation is not a sin, homosexual acts are. The distinguished newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, in its report gives another dimension to your statements. Specifically, it maintains that, by your statements about homosexuality you opened the way for the acceptance of homosexual “priests.”205
In agreement with your line of thinking, the Papist “bishop” of Mexico, Jose Raul Vera Lopez, in an interview on August 27th, 2013, stated that: “Homosexuality is not a perversion, but homophobia is a mental illness.”206
On September 19, 2013 Your Excellency stated: “Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a (homosexual) person.”207 With this statement of yours you give support to the homosexual community. In truth – with such statements regarding this carnal perversion, which are at heart deeply irresponsible since you do not condemn it in an era where this issue/passion is being recognized more and more each day by Governments around the world as “marriage” – you, Your Excellency, have opened Pandora’s box, and in this way have thrown oil into the fire.
The fitting and straightforward answer on your part should have been: “This foul passion which is completely condemned both by God and nearly all cultures and civilizations, with the exception of a portion of perverted people in our age, is simply seeking affirmation. Theologically, of course, it has also been characterized, perhaps more that any other deviation, as an act which God hates.” Truly, oh what shallowness, what carelessness, what indecency, what presumption on your part, and the lowest degradation, you who boast of the number of the “faithful” that you represent. In doing this you have added yet another spiritual deviation to the many which Papism already possesses. You have torn to shreds any validity as a “leader,” as well as your personal dignity. May Papists around the world be proud of you, even though we hope that through this some would wake up and see where Papism and its “faithful” are headed.
Since every “Pope,” and the Vatican in general, boasts that he has as his chief the Apostle Peter, and that through him they are a church, Your Excellency naturally should know what the Apostle Peter has written about this passion: “If by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly,… then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially (75) those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and who despise authority. Bold and willful, they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones…”208
St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain interprets this passage thus: “(God) burnt to ashes those cities, where they were depraved with sodomy, with a cataclysm of fire and brimstone. If God drowned so many people in fire, those will also be condemned in the future who, in the same manner as the guilty Sodomites, sin and live impiously…. For those that do not resist lechery and depravity will be punished more severely than the other sinners, whose sins one should not even write down, because they harm those who read them by merely the thought.”209
And the 7th verse of Jude’s epistle: “…just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” Fear and trembling! But who has fear now? Apart from punishment, St. Nikodemos stresses: “For the body of men (together) is totally dissimilar and foreign to natural and lawful intercourse, and in no way is it useful for child-bearing.”210
The memory of that catastrophe of old remains indelible in that region known as the Dead Sea, a portion of which was once those two cities. Today it is the border of Israel and Jordan. It remains a teacher and a reminder for us that, for a body of water devoid of life to exist there, something dreadful must have happened.
More dreadful are the words of Saint Paul: “…and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”211 It is obvious that the Apostle Paul had in mind what was happening in Pompeii in regards to this passion.
We present only a few lines from the holy Chrysostom, who translates and comments on Paul’s words: “All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases… having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature…. They made a business of the sin, and not only a business, but even one zealously followed up…. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this was worse than any punishment… [T]hese (homosexuals) I say are even worse than murderers… And if they that suffer such things perceived them, they would accept ten thousand deaths so they might not suffer this evil (he has in mind the passive homosexual). For I should not only say that thou hast become a woman, but that thou hast lost thy manhood… but thou hast been a traitor to both of them at once… having wronged either sex…. And what is there more detestable than a man who hath pandered himself, or what more execrable? Oh, what madness! Oh, ye that were more senseless than irrational creatures, and more shameless than dogs! Whence then were these evils (76) born? Of luxury; of not knowing God.”
The notable Freud, among other things, in his work Introduction to Psychoanalysis, reports: “…we have come in contact with groups of human beings whose sexual life deviates strikingly from the average. One group among them, the ‘perverse,’ have, as it were, crossed off the difference between the sexes from their program. Only the same sex can arouse their sexual desires…. They have to that extent, of course, foregone any participation in reproduction. We call such persons homosexual… [They] have dispensed with the mutual union of the genital organs, and have, as one of the partners of the act, replaced the genitals by another organ or part of the body; they have thus overcome both the short-comings of organic structure and the usual disgust involved. Through their scientific leaders they proclaim themselves to be a special species of mankind, ‘a third sex,’ which shares equal rights with the two other sexes. Of course they are not, as they would like to claim, the ‘elect’ of humanity, but comprise just as many worthless secondrate individuals as those who possess a different sexual organization.”212
The Apostle Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians213 courageously states that homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” It seems that you heretical Christians, in promoting homosexuality and regarding it as something natural and not punishable by damnation, do not sympathize with these words of the Apostle of the Nations.
In other words, you are attempting to prove to us, Your Excellency, that perversion is natural and that those who reprove such perversion are mentally ill. That is to say, according to you the Apostle Paul and the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Catholic Church, who condemn with vigor the deadly sin of homosexuality, are in need of psychiatric observation.214
His All-Holiness, Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, differentiates from your stance on the issue of homosexuality. In a statement that he made after Vespers in the Cathedral of St. Symeonin Estonia on September 7th, 2013, he sharply censured those who promote homosexual “weddings” and “civil unions” stressing the following: “The modern invention of the so-called ‘civil unions’ are also condemned, which are the result of sin and not lawful joy.”215
We Orthodox respect the individual life of each person as a free and responsible choice. We have no intention to interfere with bigotry and suspend rights and freedoms. Our protest is focused on the fact that there is an attempt to present the sin of homosexuality, of sodomy, of unnatural lechery, which extends to pederasty and pedophilia, as a natural condition, as simple diversity. However, pan-human conscience through the ages recognizes the relations between a man and a woman, male and female, as natural sexual behavior. This is human physiology and ontology. Every other relation overturns human ontology as unnatural deviation, which is not observed even amongst the animals. Holy (77) Scripture especially, which expresses the will of God, of the Creator of man and wise Master of human nature, condemns homosexuality as a passion, a disgrace and an outrage, strictly punishing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone. Homosexuality is considered by all the Holy Fathers to be the most disgusting and foul sin of all. The support and exoneration of homosexuality constitutes great irreverence towards God, the Creator of humans as male and female, and a blasphemous abolition of the Gospel. Who are you, representatives of modernism, who dare to place yourselves above God and abolish the Gospel and the teaching of the Holy Fathers? The public promotion of homosexuality, besides the fact that it insults public decency and our religious conscience, sends to the youth a message of abnormal sexual behavior, which constitutes a death-blow to the foundation of the family and the community, with its acute demographic problem, and the cause of psychopathological disorders in children, who will be raised by homosexual couples, as is now being sought.216
XXIV) THE VATICAN BANK AND MONEY LAUNDERING
The protests against the Vatican for money laundering and for the connections of economic services of the self-styled “Holy See” with Cosa Nostra, which Italian Justice uncovered, are unforgettable. More and more investigations are coming to light, which show that Papism constitutes, in essence, at its highest level of administration, a criminal organization, something very dangerous for humanity.
For example, those in charge of a three-year investigation into the Vatican Bank claim that, according to confidential documents which are invoked by two Italian newspapers, the operation of the Vatican Bank facilitates money laundering.217 However, more substantiated is the accusation of Karen Hudes, who worked for twenty consecutive years for the legal department of the World Bank and was fired when she uncovered a giant scam in Indonesia. The former legal council for the World Bank, in a recent interview with an American television network, claimed that the global wealth of a group of crookedmegabankers ends up in the Vatican.218
Her accusations bring to mind the revelations about the Vatican’s connections with the criminal organization, which was hiding behind the Masonic Lodge P2, as well as with the mafia! Karen Hudes states that it is now known that the Jesuit organization Opus Dei not only controls the European banking system, but also is at the head of the powerful Zionist club of megabankers, which has Switzerland as its headquarters.
Within this framework it is deemed necessary to present a publication219 which presents the manner of operation of the Jesuit organization Opus Dei, and which confirms and vindicates the claims of the World Bank’s former legal advisor. From the small passage that will be cited the activity of these workers of iniquity will be understood. This activity (78) essentially confirms the saying of Saint Cosmas the Aetolian, “Curse the Pope,” but also of the teacher, Saint Anastasius Gordius, who in his unprecedented work Against Islam and the Latins (which some in the past century took great pains to conceal), interprets passages of the book of Revelation, and identifies the “Pope” with the two-horned beast, the false prophet.
“The Limmat Foundation, with its headquarters in Switzerland, operates in Central and Eastern Africa, South America, South Eastern Asia and the countries of the former Soviet Union. Even though they maintain that they do not have a political or religious character, it is well known that this foundation directly influences the political policies of the countries in which it operates. Additionally, all members of the foundation have strong ties to Opus Dei. The Limmat Foundation has a yearly budget of over $1,000,000, of which 78% is derived from its own means, and the remaining 22% from governmental allocations and subsidies from the European Union. The foundation has direct connections with the Pan-European banking system, which is controlled by Opus Dei. Its catalogue of members includes chief executives of the People’s Bank of Spain, of Nordfinanzbank of Zόrich, and of Rhine-Dunude foundation, which is completely financed by the European Union.
Another organization, which was founded by members of Opus Dei, is the Hanns-Seidel Foundation, with its headquarters in Germany. The foundation is funded by the European Union, while it is connected to the Christian Social Union in Bavaria political party (CSU), the European Parliament Member of which, Fritz Pirkl, was a founding member of Hanns-Seidel. This foundation, in cooperation with the LimmatFoundation, has founded the Center for Research and Communication in the Philippines, which counts among its members the majority of the country’s economical and political elite. (Note: Karen Hudes, during her interview, accused the World Bank of conducting one of its largest “predatory raids” in this very country!) The Progredi foundation, based in Brussels, is another of Opus Dei’s showcases. Among the prominent names on the catalogue of its members was Gianmario Roveraro, owner of the investment bank Akros of Milan, and an economic adviser to the Vatican. (Unfortunately, he went missing on July 5, 2006 after having attended an Opus Dei meeting in Milan and was later ‘found chopped into pieces and hidden in a hut beneath a motorway bridge about 30km from Parma’ on July 23rd of the same year. ‘Signor Roveraro had been questioned in an inquiry into the collapse and fraudulent bankruptcy of the food and dairy conglomerate Parmalat, Europe’s largest corporate failure.’)220 The Instituto per laCooperazione Universitaria, with its central offices in Rome and Brussels, was activated in 1993 throughout all the world. It is especially active in countries such as Peru, Albania and those of the former Soviet Union. Its yearly budget surpassed $4,500,000, of which 10% is derived from its own capital, while the remaining is covered by allocations from the European Union.
The organization Association for Cultural, Technical and Educational Cooperation has its headquarters in Belgium. Its yearly budget exceeds $1,000,000, of which 30% is derived from private capital, while the remaining 70% comes from social institutions and the European Union. This organization operates in seven countries of Central Africa and (79) South America.
Of course, the long list does not end there. It is obvious, then, that Opus Dei has direct involvement in a wide array of social affairs. The influence that it wields in the political matters of the countries in which it is present is very strong. It also has a direct impact on the global political scene. In addition, its members have managed to infiltrate the European Parliament in order to become delegates of their countries in the European Union, as well as governmental representatives in the U.N. Thus they have succeeded in intervening into world developments, even having achieved the control of international organizations of public benefit such as UNESCO, the former Director-General of which, Federico Mayor Zaragoza, is a member of the organization.”
With the above information even a common-minded person understands the various games that are being played in the miniature state of the Vatican. According to ecclesiastical circles it is within this framework that we find a vote for a law in the U.S. (with retroactive effect!) which granted the capability of hundreds of victims of sexual abuse at the hand of “priests” of the Vatican to claim enormous damages. The result of this is that many of the Vatican’s Archdioceses in the U.S.A. have declared bankruptcy. These same circles claim that this law was instigated by the Zionist megabankers and aimed exclusively at achieving control of the Vatican by promoting a “Pope,” who would function purely in their interests, and who would operate as a pawn in the realization of their plan of globalization. KarenHudes asserts quite frankly that the Jesuits, the order from which Your Excellency hails, completely control the American Bankers Association.
Therefore, just as the Templars – with their Satanist-Kabbalist leader, de Molay – had attempted to take over from within the position of the “Pope,” but were discovered, tried and executed, so also the Jesuits of Opus Dei, along with their Zionist megabanker accomplices, have attempted the same, this time with economical means. The difference is that the latter have avoided errors, and have managed to force the resignation of the German born Benedict, not only by means of publications, but also with a weighty tome about economic and other scandals. They have succeeded in this way to promote Your Excellency, the so-called “Black Pope,” a title given you due to the high rank which you had in the order of the Jesuits!
The developments in the “City-state of God” are snowballing. The underground scandals have been uncovered and you, Your Excellency, try in vain to calm the storms which are rising from the “sanctum sanctorum”! The fiscal dirty laundry that time and time again is being revealed reminds us more of mafia gangsters or camorra rather than the “See of Christ’s Vicar on earth”!
Pertinent reports relate that: “Italian investigators have said the Vatican Bank operated in a way that facilitated money laundering,” according to a leaked inquiry. The disclosed report followed a three year inquiry into the bank, officially known as the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), and was recently quoted by two Italian newspapers, Corriere della Sera and La Repubblica. According to the report, IOR did not carry out enough checks on its clients, and the bank allowed account holders to transfer large sums on behalf of others. “There is a high risk that the way the IOR operates, without specifying (80)its real clients, can be used as a screen to hide illegal operations,” the report read. Prosecutors behind the inquiry also faulted Italian banks that accepted transfers from the IOR for not investigating the origin of the money, which could later be moved into other banks. “The IOR can easily become a channel for the laundering of money with a criminal origin,” said the prosecutors. The report also denied IOR’s statement that its account holders are all religious congregations or clergy. “There are also private individuals who, because they enjoy a particular relationship with the Holy See, can deposit money and open accounts,” the report read. The inquiry focused on a €23 million ($30 million) transfer made from IOR to Italian lender Credito Artigiano in 2010, with €3 million being transferred to Banca del Fucino and €20 million to JP Morgan Frankfurt. The transfer was signed off by the IOR Director General at the time, Paolo Cipriani, and his deputy, Massimo Tulli. The two resigned from their posts on July 1st, and prosecutors are set to file charges against them for their involvement in the money transfer. An additional official working at the Vatican Bank, senior priest, Nunzio Scarano, was arrested earlier by Italian police on June 28th on suspicion of money laundering, fraud and corruption. According to La Repubblica, the two high Vatican officials were also responsible for other transfers made to JP Morgan.”221
“The Vatican has frozen the assets of the cleric known as “Monsignor 500,” as the scandal involving the Pope’s bank continues to escalate. Monsignor Nunzio Scarano was among three people arrested by Italian financial police for allegedly trying to bring €20 million in cash into the country from Switzerland aboard a government plane. After suspending Scarano’s assets, the Holy See also warned that other people may be involved in the investigation. Scarano, who was denied house arrest, worked as an accountant in the Vatican’s financial administration. He was already under investigation by magistrates in the southern Italian city of Salerno, his home town, for a suspected money laundering plot involving the IOR. Italian secret service agent Giovanni Maria Zito, and a financial broker, Giovanni Carinzo, were arrested along with Scarano. The three were accused of fraud, corruption and slander stemming from the IOR plot. Monsignor Scarano – nicknamed ‘Monsignor 500’ for his habit of carrying 500 euros worth of cash in his pocket – was asked by some ‘friends’ to work with Carinzo, the broker, to return €20 million that they had given him to invest. The identity of these friends is still unknown, according to police sources. Scarano persuaded Carinzo to return the money with the help of Italian secret agent Zito. The agent went to Switzerland to bring the cash back aboard a government aircraft, in order to prevent any reporting of the mission in Italy. When the job was complete, Zito demanded his €400,000 commission. Scarano paid an initial €200,000 by cheque. But in a clumsy attempt to prevent the second installment of the commission being deposited, the monsignor filed a report for a missing €200,000 cheque.
It is unclear why he wished to prevent the deposit. After filing the report, Scarano was arrested by Italian financial police. The Vatican said its own investigation into Scarano was triggered by several suspicious transaction reports filed with the Vatican’s financial watchdog agency. It said its probe ‘could be extended to additional individuals’.”222
(81) Our first observation is that, wherever the Grace of God is absent, there is found satanic energy in abundance. For this reason we have such aforementioned results. Our second observation is that you, Your Excellency, continue the recital of hypocrisy in a hopeless attempt to mislead and “touch” the hearts of the people in order to remedy the Vatican State’s bad image. During your visit to Brazil you stated, on August 3rd and 4th, according to the newpaper The News (ΤΑ ΝΕΑ), among other things: “Human rights are not only violated by terrorism, repression or assassination, but also by unfair economic structures that create huge inequalities.” At another point you stated: “Oh, how I would like a poor Church, and for the poor.”
These statements of yours certainly make an impression and provoke wonder. With the media’s help, Your Excellency is polishing the Vatican’s very tarnished image, rocked by every kind of scandal, while you yourself are being made into a “saint.” You willingly forget, however, that the Vatican developed into an economic power during the interbellum, under the economic leadership of the banker BernardinoNogara. It was he who founded many lending companies on behalf of the Vatican, which infiltrated into banks, weapons and drug manufacturing and the fuel and gold markets. You also willingly forget that: 1) In 1942 the Vatican Bank was founded, the notorious IOR; 2) During the post-war period the Vatican extended its activities throughout the world with companies dealing with insurance, cement, steel, pasta, hotels, machines, buildings and complexes (these activities were helped because they were tax exempt); 3) From 1968, with Paul VI as “Pope,” the finances of the Vatican were taken over by the “bishop” of Chicago Paul Marcinkus, by mafia banker Michele Sindona, by the multinational banker Roberto Calvi and multiple agent Licio Gelli, founder and “Venerable Master” of the notorious Masonic lodge “Propaganda Due” (P2). The businesses and banks of the Vatican “launder” dirty money, as was revealed shortly before the resignation of His former Excellency, Benedict.
In 1978, “Pope” Paul VI reposed and was succeeded by Albino Luciani, who assumed his duties in August of 1978 with the name John Paul I. Exactly thirty-three days after he assumed office he died suddenly and inexplicably. He had expressed his desire to clean up the Vatican and he had begun to take measures towards this end with the removal of the above-mentioned individuals, along with many of their collaborators and the masons. After his death it was said (without proof) that the “Pope” was murdered with digitalis. An autopsy, however, was never performed. He was succeeded by the PoleWojtyła, as “Pope” John Paul II, and it was “business as usual.”
“Pope” John Paul II was succeeded by “Pope” Benedict XVI, whose resignation was due as much to the Vatican’s homosexual scandal as for its economical scandals. Let us not forget that shortly before his resignation there were official accusations by Italian authorities regarding money laundering.
In addition, shortly before his resignation, huge amounts of money were transferred to German banks. According to sources, the Vatican controls companies in Panama, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, which include banks (Luxembourg), publishing groups, banking unions etc. The Vatican’s wealth is legendary. A portion of this wealth could be put towards the eradication of hunger or diseases etc. But will the Vatican actually (82) concern itself with the poor? Genuine concern for the daily problems of humanity and propaganda and two very different things. You, Your Excellency, concern yourself with propaganda to improve the image of the satanic Vatican State. It is for this reason that we spoke in the beginning of a “recital of hypocrisy” on your part.223
XXV) PAPISM’S SCHEME AGAINST GREECE
We shall let our Father among the Saints, Nektarios, Bishop of Pentapolis, speak for us about the evil that Papism has caused the Greek people. The Saint, in his two-volume work Historical Study on the Causes of the Schism, which expresses itself very harshly, negatively and severely regarding the “Pope” and Papism, has the following to say: “What can one say about all of this? Should one mourn or should one mock these Papal claims? I am of the opinion that is necessary to mourn, because the Greek people have shed many tears for such popes, which became the evil demons of the Eastern Church and the Greek people.”224 Elsewhere he states: “The hate, which the Western Church had for the Greeks, was inspired throughout the West and rendered the uneducated peoples of the West fanatical enemies of the Greeks, whom they reckoned as loathsome heretics…. The Crusaders, a mob of uneducated fanatics, fostered the same hate towards the Greeks as they did towards the Ottomans. The sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders, the wild Vandals of the West, applied the seal on the Schism.”225 And finally, “The Popes sin and are brought down into hell and will continue to make themselves candidates for hell until the Second Coming, and perhaps eternally because of the evil they have done to the Church in Greece, and because of the false-unions and impious and anti-Christian agendas.”226
The Vatican’s schemes against Greece coincide with the schemes of those who war against the Church. The Vatican is hiding behind those who war against the Church by demanding a change in the public school theology lessons from confessional and catechetical classes of the Orthodox faith to syncretistic religious studies. These same people also push for the separation of the Church and State. Proof of the above claim is the article with the title “Ancient Greek, Theology and Fanatacism,” by Mr. Nicholas Gasparakis Esq., former director of Papism’s Press Office in Greece, which was published by the well know newspaper Ἐλευθεροτυπία.
In this article Mr. Gasparakis suggests the need to change the theological lessons to religious studies lessons and calls for the separation of Church and State. He attempts to add the following as an argument for the separation of the Orthodox Church from the state: “This separation would prove to be for the Church’s benefit… [M]oreover the economical indicators of our country, which today is suffering heavily, would be much more favorable for the citizens,” insinuating, of course, that if the salary of the Orthodox (83) clergy was discontinued it would “lighten” the public budget.
However, let Mr. Gasparakis answer this: How can it be otherwise, because according to Greek law there exists a contract, in which the Government has expropriated 96% of the assets of the Church of Greece in exchange for paying the salaries of the Orthodox Clergy, and therefore this is not a benevolent act on the part of the Greek Government, but a contractual obligation, as was manifestly proved, relatively recently, by the European Court of Human Rights with the nullification of the well known “Tritsis” law (N. 1700/1987).227
XXVI) YOUR EXCELLENCY’S IMPENDING VISITS TO JERUSALEM AND TO THE PHANAR
According to reports, Your Excellency has accepted the invitation of His All-Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, to visit the Holy See of the First-Throne of the Orthodox Christian Church at thePhanar, in the near future.228 Also, according to the same sources, you agreed with the proposal of His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch, to meet him in the Holy City of Jerusalem in May of 2014, for the 50-year anniversary of the meeting of your predecessors, Paul VI and Athenagoras.229 Finally, it seems that you accepted the invitation to attend an important exhibition about Mt. Athos, which will take place in 2015 at the Quirinal Palace in Italy, the inauguration of which is expected to be performed by His All-Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, as Bishop of the Monastic State.230
Truly, Your Excellency, what good can you possibly offer to the Orthodox, you who are the chosen Jesuit “Pope” of the Jews, of the Rabbis, of the masons, of the dictators, of America, of Ecumenism, of Pan-religion, of the “New Age of Aquarius,” and of the “New World Order”?
We, the Orthodox, desire union and pray unceasingly “for the unity of all (people)” – a unity in our Holy Church in truth. We do not pray for the unity of false churches who will not forsake their various heresies, of some “God-sent” unity in the diversity of false doctrines. You, the Papists, in essence, hinder this unity. We Orthodox are unifiers par excellence, whereas you, the Papists, are separators. If you do not repent here in this (84) present life, you will repent in Hades, where, however, there “is no repentance”!
We Orthodox desire union as determined by Christ – you Latins want union as determined by you. If, Your Excellency, you were acting according to Christ, have no doubt that we Orthodox, who possess the true faith of Christ, would accept union. Since, however, you do not agree with Christ, it is absolutely not possible for us to agree with you. How could it be possible, Your Excellency, for us to accept union, since you Papists are in disagreement with and antithetical to the teaching of the Gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Apostles? How could it possible for us to accept union with you who speak, believe and act contrary to God and to Patristic Tradition?
And so, since you remain unrepentant and persevere in your heresies, we are obliged to sever all relations with you and each will go his chosen way, according to the example of the blessed Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II of Tranos (1581), who held a memorable and exemplary stance in the dialogue with the protestant “theologians” of Tubingen. When he quickly ascertained that they persisted in their errors and rejected the teaching of the Holy Fathers, the illuminators and theologians of the Church, he severed communications with them and let them go their own way. “Therefore, we request that from henceforth you do not cause us more grief, nor write to us on the same subject if you should wish to treat these luminaries and theologians of the Church in a different manner. You honor and exalt them in words, but you reject them in deeds. For you try to prove our weapons, which are their holy and divine discourses, as unsuitable. And it is with these documents that we would have to write and contradict you. Thus, as for you, please release us from these cares. Therefore, going about your own ways, write no longer concerning dogmas; but if you do, write only for friendship’s sake. Farewell.”231
The Apostle Paul, that preacher of the Divine Word, writes: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”232 And again he writes: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed!”233 The same is said by the God-bearing Ignatius: “Every one that teaches anything beyond what is commanded, though he be [deemed] worthy of credit, though he be in the habit of fasting, though he live in continence, though he work miracles, though he have the gift of prophecy, let him be in thy sight as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, laboring for the destruction of the sheep.” The Seventh Holy and Ecumenical Council also prescribes: “Three times we anathematize all that was innovated and enacted – or that after this shall be enacted – outside of Church tradition and the teaching and institution of the holy and ever-memorable Fathers.”234 In addition, the wise Bryennios wrote: “If someone changes any of the teachings of the God-bearing Fathers, we should not call this, by economy, deviation, but rather a transgression and betrayal of the faith and irreverence to God.”
(85) God gave us the first commandment of love and the Church prays “for the union of all.” God, however, taught us true love, not false love. He taught us love, not only with the lips and the mouth, but love with all our heart and soul. Not superficial love, but interior love – a love of the heart. The Lord taught us true love, but simultaneously He taught us, for our own protection, to beware of false prophets, of falsechrists, of false teachers, of wolves in sheep’s clothing, of wolves, dogs, hypocrites, highpriests, priests, scribes and Pharisees. The Lord Himself castigated these with the fearful and horrible “woe,” characterizing them as “fools,” “the blind leading the blind,” “devourers,” “unjust,” “whitewashed tombs,” “snakes” and “generation of vipers.” Our Lord commanded us to beware of such people, warning us to not draw near to them, not to have contact with them, but only to pray that the Lord would enlighten them to repent. How did the Holy Fathers behave towards such people? Well, these Holy Fathers, the imitators of the Archpastor, Christ, and successors of his Disciples, the divine shepherds, which sacrificed their lives for their rational sheep, who set up the nine venerable and holy Ecumenical Councils, hurled all these heretics far away from the flock of Christ with the sling of the Holy Spirit. They banished them far away and gave them over, as unrepentant ones, to eternal anathema.235
There can exist no form of compromise between Orthodoxy and Papism, neither with its older nor its modern spirit, nor with its idolatry. Neither can there exist unity nor, more importantly, can there exist union. We worship the God-man, while you worship man – man who you made into a god, and finally the false gods of idolatry. The true, conscience Orthodox Christians in no way take part in mixed marriages, and we do not enter into relations with those who are heretics and unbelievers. Our aim and the goal which we seek is heaven and eternal blessedness, whereas for you the end and the goal is this world and prosperity on earth.
We are obedient to the divinely inspired command of the Apostle Paul: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers… [W]hat communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?… [C]ome out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.”236
If, Your Excellency, you desire union, you must recognize and confess all your errors, your heresies and innovations, which the “Popes” throughout the second millennium have fallen into, splintering from the Orthodox Church. You must repent, you must weep bitterly, humble yourself and then you will be acceptable. If you do not shed your pride and if you do not humble yourself, imitating the Lord, not only will you not succeed in union, but also the division will increase and even greater scandal will be caused along with confusion, turmoil, great pain and damage to the flock.
(86) If you imitate the Lord and humble yourself, you will achieve the union, you will greatly benefit yourself and the flock and you will glorify the Name of the Heavenly Father as it was glorified by the Holy Apostles, “because the Lord resists the proud; but He gives grace to the humble” and “for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”237
That which is reported about the modern holy elders of our Orthodox Church, the monk Paisius of Mt. Athos and the Hieromonk Porphyrios, regarding this particular matter, is very characteristic. The “Pope” at that time, having been informed about the existence of these holy elders and about the influence which they had on the Orthodox people desired to meet them. He sent some people to feel them out and see if indeed they wished to visit with him. The answer which came from both of them, without having any communication with each other, because they were guided by the spirit and by God, was that, since the “Pope” continues to demonstrate egotism, pride and the delusions of Papism and does not repent, was that a meeting was impossible. “No, we cannot go, because, Papism and the Pope are not prepared. They have too much egotism. Not only do they wish to subject us to themselves and Papism, but they also do not believe that we have the truth. There is no need for us to go. We can help the situation better with our prayers.”238 And so, Your Excellency, because death is uncertain and because, according to the Gospel verse, “Ye know not the hour nor the day of death,” for this reason we urge you, as the least of the members of the All-Holy and Spotless Body of Christ and especially as Orthodox Bishops, hasten to return to the bosom of the Orthodox Church, before the end comes. The Triune God accepts you with open arms! There will be joy on earth among the right-believing brothers over your return, and among the Angels in heaven as well! Make haste to enter the divine bridal chamber before the door is closed, because, according to St. Cyril, as many as were defiled with heresy will be devoid of the garment of incorruption.
Finally we must make known to you that any censure and abuse that might come upon us for this gesture of ours will constitute the greatest crown of our life according to the true conformation of our Savior (Matt. 10:11); and be sure that the above truth will soon be verified, because “death was given to men that evil might not become immortal.”
We pray that the uncreated Grace of the All-Holy Spirit will enlighten your mind and strengthen you to shake off the slumber of delusion, heresy and sloth and to draw nigh to the open arms of the Orthodox Church.
Restore the abject and erstwhile senior and ancient Patriarchate of Old Rome and the West to the Body of Christ, to the Body of the Church. Take upon yourself your holy duties as the First Orthodox Primate of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches with the true primacy of honor, which is your right as the Orthodox First Hierarch, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Amen.
+ Andrew of Dryinoupolis, Pogoniani and Konitsa
+ Seraphim of Piraeus and Faliro