++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CHRISTIANITY OR THE PAPACY?
An Appeal to Roman Catholics
by Father Alexey Young
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Introduction.......
Someone has said that the Orthodox Church is like a mansion with
countless different gates -- no two people seem to enter by the same one.
I entered Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism in 1970. As a "cradle
Catholic", I passed through a period of skepticism concerning religion
when, as a young man, I forsook the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church
and lived a deeply sinful and irresponsible life for a period of years.
This was not because of any lack on the part of my Catholic parents
who, by precept and example, had certainly given me more than they can ever
know, or because the nuns in school had "failed" me. My agnosticism and
reproachable style of life were purely self-willed.
There came a point when the emptiness of my life compelled me to
start looking for God. Having been raised in a Catholic environment, I
naturally turned back to that Church for guidance and strength. I returned
to the Catholic sacraments, read spiritual books, went on "retreats", and
visited monastics -- particularly contemplatives in enclosed orders. From
the outside, it must have seemed like a routine adult conversion or
"re-conversion".
In fact, I was not "reconverted" at all. At bottom there was a
deep sense of dissatisfaction. I had returned to Catholicism in order to
learn about spiritual life. By now, I was also a husband and a father, and
was concerned about teaching my children true values. But this was shortly
after the second Vatican Council, a time of great upheaval and strife
within the Roman Church, when anything and everything were being emphasized
BUT the things I needed in my life.
In 1966, I heard through the news media of the death of Blessed
John Maximovitch, the Orthodox Archbishop of Western America and San
Francisco. The stories I heard about his heroic ascetic struggles and
wonder working moved me, and I decided to attend his funeral. I had been
in Orthodox churches before, but only out of idle curiosity. Now, I was
present at the funeral of a saintly hierarch because he had somehow
"spoken" to me through the news reports about his holy life and death.
I was not converted to Orthodoxy on the spot, but I had a strong
desire to know more about this archbishop's angel-like life. I read
whatever I could find concerning him in English and was hungry for more.
So I began reading lives of other Orthodox saints (and immediately was
aware of how different they are from Roman Catholic "saints", though I did
not then know why). I felt the strongest attraction towards these saints
and couldn't forget them. It didn't take long to realize that I could
better understand them if I knew more about their faith. I read several
books about Orthodoxy -- some by writers who were Orthodox, others by Roman
Catholics, and others who were just "objective scholars". It was here that
I first came across the Orthodox belief that the Western or Latin church
had separated itself from the Orthodox Church, and not the other way around
-- as I had always been told. This was an amazing idea, hardly possible,
and certainly not believable -- or was it? I decided to probe further.
I was born and raised during the "triumphal" years of the reign of
Pius XII as pope. Deeply engraved on my mind from my first years in
parochial school was an image of this white-clad and austere pontiff who
was, according to our catechism book, the "Successor of St.Peter" and
"Vicar of Christ on earth." I decided to see what I could find out about
the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the writings of the pre-schism
Church Fathers (both Eastern and Western), and in the decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils which had been accepted by the Universal Church before
the Schism of 1054 A.D.
What I discovered was nothing short of shocking to my Catholic
mind. Far from finding a clear and established teaching about the
supremacy of the Roman See, I found on the contrary considerable evidence
that the Fathers knew no such teaching and that the bishops of Rome were,
for the first 800 years, either silent on the subject (STRANGE, if they
believed themselves to have universal authority over the Church!), or
decisively REJECTED the idea of a supremacy for themselves. Subsequently,
I learned about the origin of other Latin doctrines (such as the Filioque,
purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, etc.).
Long after I was "intellectually convinced" that Rome had been
guilty of errors and innovations (I didn't think of them as heresies at
that point), I still thought that the idea of the papacy was quite
"reasonable", even if it wasn't of Apostolic origin. (This business of
"reasonableness", by the way, is characteristic of the Catholic mentality
-- the same "reasonableness" or "logic" had led to erroneous teachings
about the Holy Trinity, life after death, and the Mother of God.) I was
only being "pragmatic". I reasoned thus: the Church of Christ must
preserve and teach the Truth to each generation; she must know her own mind
on all of these things and speak authoritatively. How better to do this
than to have a locus for this teaching in the person of 'one' bishop?
However, it was one thing to conclude that the papacy was somehow "right",
and quite another to see it as a 'good' thing. This was rationalistic
"double-think", but I didn't know it then.
What brought me through all of this to a knowledge of the truth was
not book-learning and research, but the incomparable example of Orthodox
saints. The burning attraction I had felt for them was love, not scholarly
fascination. I wanted to understand them better; in fact, I wanted to be
like them. I realized that I loved them because they are Christ-like;
their Orthodox way of life is a constant revelation of Christ to the world
of men. How could I imitate them if I didn't try to live their Faith?
When later I discovered these words by a modern Orthodox writer, I
wished that I had found them during this time of searching.
"In order for one to understand the saints and fathers of the
Church, it is not sufficient merely you read them. The saints spoke and
wrote after having lived the mysteries of God. They personally experienced
the mysteries. In order for one to understand them, he too must have
progressed to a certain degree of initiation into the mysteries of God by
personally tasting, smelling, and seeing. You can read the books of the
saints and become very well versed in them with a 'cerebral' knowledge,
without even minutely tasting that which the saints who wrote these books
tasted through their personal experience. In order to understand the
saints essentially, not intellectually, you must have the proper
experiences for all that they say. You must have tasted, at least in part,
the same things as they. You must have lived in the fervent environment of
Orthodoxy. You must have grown in it ... A WHOLE NEW WORLD MUST BE BORN
IN A WESTERNER'S HEART IN ORDER FOR HIM TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING OF
ORTHODOXY." (Dr. Alexander Kalomiros).
It was blessed Archbishop John -- the first Orthodox saint I had
known -- who brought about my conversion as I knelt before his tomb on
Great Saturday of 1970. Some weeks later, I stood with my family before a
priest in order to be received into Orthodoxy. I was called upon to
"renounce, now, with all thy heart, thine errors and false doctrines." This
I did willingly. But the hardest words to utter were "I do" after this
question: "Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief ... that a man, to
wit, the bishop of Rome, can be the head of Christ's body, that is to say,
of the whole Church?"
Someone not raised in the Church of Rome might well wonder why I,
who had, after all, been truly and spiritually (not merely intellectually)
converted to Orthodoxy, should at the last moment tremble at renouncing the
Pope. Few Orthodox clergy realize in the least what a Roman Catholic has
to go through before he becomes Orthodox. There is an internal conflict
that comes from years of training; he feels that he has left a familiar
room and is stepping into a huge wilderness. He needs time and much
patient understanding in order to make the necessary break with his past.
Pre-Vatican II Roman Catholics will have no difficulty at all in
understanding my hesitation. Central to the faith of the Roman Catholic is
his conviction that the true Church must rest upon the "barque of Peter,"
for no one not in obedience to the Pope can be saved -- and especially not
someone who knowingly rejects the papacy. But since a Roman Catholic's
faith is by definition built upon the idea of the papacy, it was essential
that I renounce it once and for all, if I were going to be a true and
honest Orthodox Christian. Thanks be to God, the moment I spoke the words
of renunciation, all emotional ties with Rome were immediately severed.
Not once during the succeeding years did I, or my wife, look back upon our
years as Roman Catholics with an instant of regret or nostalgia.
I have gone to some length to describe the path I took from Rome to
Orthodoxy, not because there was anything particularly special about it,
but because it may be of help to some well-meaning people in the Roman
Catholic Church who are today experiencing the same profound
dissatisfaction through which I went, who are dismayed and shaken by the
all but unbelievable changes in the church since Vatican II, and who are
sick of being in that constant state of agitation and tension which
distracts them from following Christ -- but who still hold on emotionally
to the idea of the papacy. So deep-seated are the ties which bind
traditional Roman Catholics to the pope that, in the face of intelligent
evidence to the contrary, they continue to insist that they can save their
souls if only they remain loyal and obedient at least to the "idea" of the
papacy, if not to the actual person of the reigning pope.
The following essay will be disturbing to Roman Catholic readers.
It contains some things that they already know, and much that will be new
to them. Its purpose is three-fold: first, to witness to the faith which
God gave to one unworthy former Roman Catholic; second, to give an
"Orthodox view" of developments in the Church of Rome -- developments to
which no honest Catholic can turn a blind eye or deaf ear; and third, to
show sincere Roman Catholics that (as another has written), "in order to be
'truly' Catholic they must become Orthodox."
The 19th century Russian saint, John of Kronstadt, observed that
Roman Catholicism had become a dead shell of Christianity, held together
only by its outward discipline. When this discipline begins to crack, he
said, the institution itself will collapse.
This was exactly prophetic of the events we are now witnessing.
The spectacle of the Roman Catholic Church in disarray around the world and
throughout her ranks is the sure result of this slow collapse in outward
discipline. The sorry plight of today's Catholics is amazing to
non-Catholics who remember the Roman triumphalism of previous years.
How did this slow collapse come about, and what does it mean for
Roman Catholics -- indeed, for all of us?
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OLD-TIME RELIGION?
The Latin or Western Church was once part of the Universal Church
of Christ. At the time of the Great Schism of 1054 A.D. she left the True
Church. For a long time before this, Western Christians showed signs of an
unhealthy emphasis on rationalism and logic -- which was alien to the
spirit of Christianity. Such, for example, was the "logical" deduction
that caused the Latins to introduce into the Nicene Creed the 'filioque'
("from the Son") clause, even though there was no justification for this in
either Scripture or Tradition. Such, also was the steadly growing temporal
power of the papacy -- directly contradicting the canons of the various
Councils (which had heretofore been accepted by the Roman Patriarchate).
Before the Schism. the authority of the bishop of Rome consisted
of rightful jurisdiction over all bishops in his see. The First Council of
Nicaea (A. D. 325) accorded a primacy of "honor" to the bishop of Old
Rome, not because Rome had been the seat of St. Peter, but "on account of
her being the imperial capital" [Canon 28].
As Patriarch of Western Europe, this bishop had no more authority
than that granted to any of the patriarchs in the Eastern section of the
empire. It is little known, but as late as the 19th century many Roman
Catholic bishops still understood the jurisdiction of the pope in the same
way as the early Church. When Pius IX sought the official mantle of
supremacy in all matters of faith and morals at the First Vatican Council
(1870), Bishop Strossmayer rose and spoke these words:
"I do not find one single chapter, or one little verse [of
Scripture] in which Jesus Christ gives to St. Peter the mastery over the
apostles, his fellow-workers ... The Apostle Paul makes no mention of the
primacy of Peter in any of his letters directed to the various churches ...
What has surprised me most, and what moreover is capable to demonstration,
is the SILENCE OF ST. PETER HIMSELF!"
Bishop Strossmayer's view exactly agrees with the universal
understanding of the early Church. He continued:
"The Councils of the first four centuries, while they recognized
the high position which the bishop of Rome occupied in the Church on
account of Rome, only accorded to him a pre-eminence of honor, never of
power or of jurisdiction. In the passage, "Thou art Peter, and on this
rock will I build My Church," the Fathers never understood that the Church
was built on Peter (super Petrum), but on the rock (super petram) of the
Apostle's confession of faith in the Divinity of Christ." [For the complete
text of Bishop Strossmayer's address to the First Vatican Council, see 'The
Myth of Papal Infallibility,' The Cenacle/St.John of Kronstadt Press,
1990.]
I stress that Strossmayer's words truly reflect the pre-Schism
teaching of the Church of Christ, both East and West. Any Roman Catholic
can check this out for himself -- both Strossmayer's comments and the
teachings of the early fathers. Considerable information is available to
those who sincerely wish to learn. It is NOT an "esoteric subject" that
only theologians and historians can understand. To Roman Catholic readers
I say: you owe it to yourselves, for the sake of your souls, to FIND OUT.
If for some reason you cannot locate the information on your own, then
write to one of the sources mentioned in this article.
One of the books which you should obtain and read in its entirety,
and which is available in most larger libraries is 'The Commonitory' of the
Western Church Father, St. Vincent of Lerins (+450). It is most readily
found in Vol. XI of 'The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers' [Eerdmans Press],
or in the 'Fathers of the Church' series of the Catholic University of
America.
St. Vincent is writing against the innovations of his time. His
object is to provide a general rule for distinguishing truth from heresy.
He answers the question, "How are we to understand Scripture when so many
[heretics] interpret it differently?" He replies that true Catholics are
those who "hold the Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and
by all," and who "in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is
manifest were held by our holy ancestors and fathers."
Under the heading "The Notes of a True Catholic" he says that "the
true and genuine Catholic [is he who] believes that, and that only, which
he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times;
but that whatsoever new and unheard-of doctrine he shall find to have been
furtively introduced by some one or other" he will reject.
(I should emphasize that many Church fathers use the term
"Catholic" in their writings, but they do NOT mean ROMAN Catholic. They
use the word in its original sense -- universal, all-inclusive and "whole"
-- when speaking of the true Church of Christ. Thus, one of the earliest
fathers, St. Ignatius of Antioch, says nothing of the pope, but does say:
"Where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church; where the bishop is
[meaning any true bishop], there must the people be also.")
Most telling is that nowhere does St. Vincent say that the bishop
of Rome is a "guide" in matters of faith, although he mentions the Roman
see and quotes Pope Stephen as saying, "Let there be no innovation --
nothing but what has been handed down." When we see the post-Schism
teaching about the "infallibility" of the bishop of Rome in matters of
faith and morals, we cannot but wonder why St. Vincent did deem it
important to say that one of the "notes" of a true Catholic is his
submission to Rome.
Moreover, Roman Catholic scholars commonly admit that the doctrine
of papal authority is of recent origin. To quote from the 'Catholic
Dictionary' (printed under "imprimatur" in 1917) concerning the age of the
early fathers: "We cannot expect many instances of the exercise of papal
power at this time. Time was needed to develop [these] principles." "It
would, of course, be a monstrous anachronism were we to attribute a belief
in papal infallibility to anti-Nicene fathers. Our contention is simply
that the modern doctrine of papal power is the 'logical' outcome of
patristic principles." Finally: "Papal infallibility follows by 'logical
consequence'...."
This illustrates another point, that in Roman Christianity one
comes to a knowledge of the truth primarily by just 'thinking', by bringing
all the rational powers of one's mind to a point of concentration on a
given question or concept. There is no other prerequisite than that a
person be reasonably intelligent and informed and prepared to do the job of
thinking. A Thomas Aquinas or John Calvin might add to this thinking
process a prayerful request for inspiration, but the foundation is
essentially the same: It is human logic which guides the thinker. This
has been for so many centuries the 'norm' that no one in Western
Christendom supposes there is anything wrong with it, in spite of the fact
that individuals starting with the same set of "facts" come to quite
different conclusions. Therefore, it seems quite "logical" to some that
there should be an infallible papacy, while to others it seems complete
nonsense.
Contrast this with the Orthodox way to knowledge. The holy fathers
and saints do not just "sit down and think". They first struggle with
their sins and are purified. As a present-day Orthodox theologian, Fr.
Nicholas Deputatov, has written: "The mysteries of our Faith are unknown
and not understandable to those who are not repenting." After this, God
enlightens them about the Truth. While the Orthodox fathers do not despise
human reason (in fact, they have great respect for it), they also know that
God's ways seem foolish to the wise of this world.
The point is that for Orthodox Christians the basis of true
knowledge is not man, but God. It is no longer this way in the West, where
Christendom has become too imbued with humanistic principles of the
Renaissance that it makes man the measure of all things, adding God as an
after-thought (if indeed He is "added" at all).
But I must say also that although Rome accepted and began to teach
various novelties and heresies, she also preserved many basic Orthodox
doctrines and outward forms (at least by comparison with later
Protestants), albeit in a distorted way -- that is, until the Second
Vatican Council.
However, among pre-Vatican II innovations is the doctrine of the
"Immaculate Conception" promulgated by Pope Pius IX in 1858. Roman
Catholics justified this new teaching by saying that it has 'always' been
believed by the Church, although not officially "defined" as an article of
faith. This is a curious claim in light of the fact that numerous
post-Schism Roman Catholic teachers quite decisively rejected the notion
that the Mother of God was "conceived without sin." One such who will be
well known to traditional minded Roman Catholics is Bernard of Clairvaux,
one of the medieval champions of the Mother of God, considered a saint by
the Roman Catholics. Bernard wrote at length on the matter, but the
following brief quotation may be of special interest:
"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to
change the condition of important matters, introducing a new festival
unknown to the Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient
tradition. Are we really more learned and more pious than our fathers?
You will say, 'One must glorify the Mother of God as much as possible.'
This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands
discernment. This royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications,
a novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief, and
the daughter of light-mindedness" [Bernard, Epistle 174; quoted in 'The
Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God', Archbishop John Maximovitch,
Platina, CA, 1978].
In spite of such innovations, prior to Vatican II the outward
discipline of the Church of Rome was awesome. But once the revolutionary
spirit began to shatter that iron-clad discipline, Rome started to reveal
her inner self as never before, all in the name of legalistic obedience to
the pope.
IN THE WAKE OF VATICAN II
In 1967 the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano,
announced that "Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the
path of ecumenism. It has come closer to the liturgical forms of the
Lutheran Church." Many applauded this development. A few were shocked.
Ten years later, the Roman Catholic Church was threatened with
schism on both the right and the left: on the right, symbolized by the
French traditionalist Archbishop Lefebvre, who did not want to be
protestantized; and on the left, by a host of modernist theologians who
teach humanism and relativism, and wish to build a "new world order".
It is because of the reformers on the left that institutional
Catholicism is collapsing. These far more numerous than the
traditionalists, more outspoken, and clearly more influential in all areas
of Catholic society. The tremendous tensions between the left and the
right prompted the noted Roman Catholic writer and ex-Jesuit, Malachi
Martin, to predict: "Well before the year 2000, there will no longer be a
religious institution recognizable as the Roman Catholic Church of today."
Major changes in liturgy, theology and world view have caused a
committee of Roman theologians to declare that their church is now in "a
period of spiritual crisis that is without precedent."
This is because of what Malachi Martin calls the "de-churching of
Christians":
"For almost twenty years now, the churches have been dedicating
them selves predominantly, in some cases exclusively to issues of
sociology, and politics. They have been led into deeper and deeper
commitment to public action of a kind indistinguishable from the local
political club. This commitment has changed the way they pray and worship
and preach the Gospel revelation ... No one knows what will be left
intact, or how long Christians of a later generation will have to struggle
in order to regain that essential link with the Jesus of history, without
whom Christianity becomes one huge, dead joke." Let us now examine some of
these important changes and their meaning.
CHANGES IN LITURGY AND THEOLOGY
The primary liturgical act of Roman Catholicism is the Mass.
Except in certain conservative religious orders, the concept of the Lord's
Supper as part of a whole liturgical cycle (including Vespers and Matins)
is now completely lost. A 30-minute Sunday Mass brings Roman Catholics
together and teaches them of their faith.
For centuries, this Mass had been heard only in Latin, a language
in which most lay Catholics were not fluent. Consequently, when Vatican II
authorized vernacular Masses, changes in the prayers went unnoticed except
by a few who pointed out that doctrine had been changed. For instance, the
offering of praise to the Trinity was suppressed and, in addition,
references to God became vague and deistic, calling to mind the "Delta" or
Grand Architect of Freemasonry, rather than the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob.
The dogmatic title 'Mother of God' (in Greek Theotokos), so dear to
Orthodox Christians, and also to Roman Catholics until recently, was
suppressed. Other omissions appear to suppress the doctrine of the
communion of saints, whose intercession is now rarely asked (such things
being left to the "discretion" of the individual priest). Even the words
of Our Lord, spoken at the Last Supper, were altered in the "canon" of this
New Mass! Perhaps this is not surprising, when one remembers that a
millenium ago the Roman Catholic Church considered it perfectly reasonable
to insert the FILIOQUE clause into the Creed, thus altering the doctrine of
the Holy Trinity and incurring the anathema of the Nicene Fathers who had
forbidden any tampering with the Creed.
A true believer must be concerned about the TRUTH of his beliefs.
Catholic traditionalists realize this. A true Christian is bound to know
and confess the dogma of the Trinity. But if his beliefs about the Trinity
are in error, HOW CAN HE KNOW GOD? Perhaps it is beyond hope that liberal
Catholics could care one way or the other. But what about those who wish,
with every fiber of their being, to be IN THE TRUTH?
Other changes in the prayers of the Mass are too numerous to
mention here. But in general, the whole emphasis was shifted. As one
horrified Catholic priest, James Wathen, observed: "Of its very nature,
the 'New Mass' 'liberates' the 'children of God' that they might make a
GAME out of worship ... intrinsic to the very idea of the 'New Mass' is
that the PEOPLE are more important than Christ the Savior ... Is it not
they who must be entertained, accommodated, and emoted over? In the
incessantly repeated phrase, "The People of God", it is the PEOPLE who, in
Marxist fashion are being acclaimed, not God ... THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE
PLACE OF GOD."
More and more priests are using the New Mass as a "setting" for
incredible "events". To cite one recent example, the Socialist-Feminist
(and pro-abortionist) leader Gloria Steinem accepted an invitation to speak
in a Catholic Church in Minneapolis. (She reportedly boasted of the
"momentary delight" she had "at the thought of defiling the altar.") One of
the guests was a Methodist layman. He was so scandalized by Miss Steinem's
remarks that he left in disgust, saying "They might as well invite Satan
himself to preach at this church."
The old axiom LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI (as we worship, so we
believe) is certainly true. The de-sacralized New Mass lends itself to
un-Christian ideas and behavior.
Roman Catholics have now almost completely lost the ascetic spirit.
Whereas Orthodoxy still proclaims that the ESSENCE of Christianity is
asceticism, and to this end gives Orthodox Christians strict fasting rules
as a STANDARD for Christian life, Catholicism has almost completely
abandoned any such idea. To take fasting before Communion as an example --
when I was a child in the Catholic Church, the faithful were required to
fast from all food and drink from the midnight before. Later, this was
changed to three hours ... and finally, in the wake of Vatican II, to one
hour.
One Orthodox theologian says this about the Roman Catholic spirit
of reform: "The papal idea, based on the corrupt modern principle of
spiritual self-satisfaction, is either to give a special 'dispensation'
from the standard... or else to change the standard itself so that the
believer can fulfill it easily, and thereby obtain a sense of satisfaction
from 'obeying the law.' This is precisely the difference between the
Publican and the Pharisee: the Orthodox man feels himself constantly a
sinner because he falls short the Church's exalted standard (in spirit if
not in letter), whereas 'modern' man wishes to feel himself justified,
without any twinge of conscience over falling short of the Church's
standard" [Fr. Seraphim Rose].
In an "Open Appeal" to Paul VI, Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello of
Italy stated: "The seminaries and the pontifical universities, as is well
known, have become schools of immanentism, naturalism, and even Marxism and
atheism; and they are now infecting more than 90% of the clergy."
Liturgical reform has spawned open attacks upon the very divinity of Jesus
Christ. A Time cover story, "New Debate over Jesus' Divinity",
summarized the "new" thinking:
The German theologian, Hans Kung, the most famous of the liberal
theologians, now teaches that the dogmatic definitions of Christ's divine
and human natures are OBSOLETE: they must be "transferred to the mental
climate of our own time." Apparently the "mental climate of our own time"
is Arian, for the Jesuit Piet Schoonenberg wishes to completely drop all
reference to the two natures of Christ, and the Dominican Edward
Schillebeeckx says that Jesus was only a human being who gradually grew
"closer" to God. Others now speak of the Savior as "a man elected and sent
by God."
CHANGES IN WORLD-VIEW
Pope Paul had asserted that "the thoughts of Chairman Mao Tse-Tung
reflect Christian values." Archbishop Pintonello, in his appeal to the pope
wrote: "The falsely ecumenical embrace gives credibility to the absurd
'discovery' of affinity and even identity between Christ and Marx." (But,
as the Rev. Vincent Miceli says, this is not surprising, for "once the
liturgy is humanized, Christ becomes the humanist 'par excellence', the
liberator, the revolutionary, the Marxist ushering in the millenium; He
ceases to be the Divine Redeemer.")
Catholic traditionalists wonder why Paul VI received with all due
honor Communist leaders from all over the world, yet would not give
audiences to traditionalists. The answer is probably close to what Malachi
Martin wrote in his recent book, 'The Final Conclave', in which he boldly
predicted that the election of Paul's successor would be strongly
influenced by Communists. Martin, who was for years a Vatican "insider",
explains that Pope Paul and many of his Cardinals had abandoned hope that
Western democracies can survive the coming onslaught of Communism (how
wrong they were). Since they want to be on the "winning side", they were
seeking a rapprochement with both existing Communist governments and
left-wing movements in the West.
Reviewing Martin's book, a prominent American Catholic
traditionalist, Walter Matt, speaks of this Marxist infiltration into his
church and says that it is "not at all illusory": "the actual presence of
some agents of Soviet Russia exists among the hierarchy of the Church." He
believes that institutional Catholicism is being "pushed nearer to an
abyss" by current Vatican policies. Elsewhere, Dr. Matt writes: "And
meanwhile our spiritual shepherds either sleep or play the game of
compromise and detente with heresy and sin."
SINCE PAUL VI
Shortly after 'The Final Conclave' was published, Paul VI died and
was succeeded by Cardinal Luciana as Pope John Paul I. In spite of reports
that Luciana was a "reactionary", there were indictions that this "quietly
genial man" was not all he seemed. He was ready to continue with the
program of reforms launched by the Vatican Council.
In this country, frank Orthodox reaction to John Paul may be
summarized by this brief item from a Serbian Orthodox Newspaper: "John
Paul I will be remembered in the Orthodox world because during a visit to
this pope and while in his study, Archbishop Nikodim of Leningrad died, the
biggest 'spy' in 'cassock' of the Soviet Union, and an officer of the
Soviet Secret Police (KGB). Nikodim had been identified by KGB defectors
to the West as a Major- General in the First Chief Directorate of the KGB.
For reasons perhaps best known to Nikodim and John-Paul, this Soviet agent
was reportedly 'moved to tears' during the pope's inaugural Mass."
John Paul's successor, Cardinal Wojtyla of Poland, the youngest
pope in centuries and the first non-Italian since 1523, has proved to be
another "crowd-pleaser". Like his predecessor, John Paul II is said to
want to continue the changes of Vatican II.
THE CHURCH OR THE WORLD
It is shocking for Roman Catholic lay people to learn how
pervasively wordly is the spirit of their church; to see the utter lack of
Gospel simplicity in the speeches of their leaders. An English Catholic,
writing to a newspaper, said it well: "We are all sick to death of
socialists and progressives alike with their reforming ideas... Indeed, a
stranger looking into a Roman Catholic church today would imagine he was
in a Protestant Reformed church... It is indeed something to thank God
that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have refused to change anything and have
stuck to the old liturgies."
Michael Davies, an English traditionalist, says that "during a time
of general apostasy, Christians who remain faithful to their traditional
Faith may have to worship outside the official churches... in order not to
compromise their traditional Faith."
In order to achieve its ungodly ends, the revolutionary spirit in
the Vatican makes full use of the Church of Rome's legalism and obsession
for what is fashionable and "relevant", Michael Davies makes this very
clear: "Those who had initiated the revolution (in the Catholic Church)
were only too well aware of the fact that, provided their innovations could
be imposed as orders from above, they could be expect to encounter very
little effective opposition from priests and religious, and this meant
virtually no opposition at all. The prevailing attitude was that the role
of the laity was to follow whatever lead the clergy gave them -- and only
too often in the history of the Church the lead given by the clergy, the
higher clergy in particular, has been to heresy and apostasy... [Whereas]
upholding the faith does not consist simply of behaving as an automaton
programmed to carry out any and every clerical command... [Progressives
think of ordinary believers] as 'a herd' which is 'straying apathetically
behind' and is difficult to love. The ordinary believer is 'a
superstitious religious caterpillar.'"
The Rev. Mr. Wathen is appalled at the "servility" with which
Catholics have accepted the changes in liturgy, theology and policy. He
exclaims: "this truly is what our enemies may well describe as 'popery' in
the authentic sense of the word! As if our religion were nothing more than
the dumb and servile fulfillment of the pope's mere wishes, totally
unrelated to morality...or even plain common sense."
But what can such otherwise astute observers as Davies and Wathen
expect, when pope after pope emphasizes the "power" he holds as "Vicar of
Christ"? Even John-Paul II lost no time in stressing the "discipline" of
the clergy and the "obedience" of the laity. The Vatican Council may have
wrought havoc by opening the door to countless new heresies, but it did not
fail to restate papal supremacy when it said: "All this teaching about the
sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible teaching
authority, this sacred Synod again proposes to be firmly believed by all
the faithful" [Article 18 of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church].
Wathen says that those Catholics who have accepted compromise and
heresy "have done so under the mistaken notion that its introduction was
'legal', or at least apparently so, and therefore its acceptance was both
permissible and necessary." This legalism IS of course what the Western
Christians have inherited from the Schism of 1054, when the Latins broke
away from the Orthodox Church.
Quite a number of traditionalists have begun to see the trap into
which they have been led by legalism. The question of obedience torments
them day and night. They anguish endlessly over the fact that, as Matt
puts it, "liberal Catholics, neo-modernists, Marxists, etc, HAVE NOT BEEN
DISCIPLINED. They have NOT been removed from their positions of power and
influence" by those in 'legitimate authority'.
TO RESCUE A SINKING SHIP......
So vast is the panic in the Roman Church that bishops and pastors
are now appealing to their faithful on purely emotional grounds. I've
heard a first-hand account of a sermon delivered in St. Patrick's Cathedral
in New York. Talking about the present confusion, the priest told his
people that they must "stick with the pope no matter what -- for if they do
this, they "will be saved", echoing Boniface VIII in his Bull, 'Unam
Sanctum' (1302 "It is necessary to salvation that every human creature to
be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This priest urged his flock to shut their
ears to those who criticize the pope and others in authority, because the
pope's power is "derived from St. Peter, who presided over the first Church
Council of Jerusalem."
Of course, the average Catholic, accustomed to believe everything
he hears from the pulpit, does not know that the pope could not derive his
position from St. Peter because St. Peter did not possess or claim
universal jurisdiction, primacy, infallibility, or any of the things popes
claim for themselves. As I said at the outset, Catholics don't know this
because they have, from youth, been told otherwise. But if they have read
the Book of Acts, they would at least know that the Council of Jerusalem
was presided over NOT BY ST. PETER, BUT BY ST. JAMES, the first Bishop of
Jerusalem!
In any case, this priest stood before his people and told them to
keep silent about the heresies in their church and "be obedient", and this
he justified with an untruth about the authority of the pope. One wonders
what his congregation would think of the words of Pope St. Gregory the
Great, speaking about the title "Ecumenical" or "Universal":
"What will you say to Christ, Who is the Head of the Universal
Church, in the scrutiny of the Last Judgement, having attempted to put all
His members under yourself by the appellation of Universal... Certainly
Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the Universal Church,
Paul, Andrew, John -- what were they but HEADS OF PARTICULAR COMMUNITIES...
And of all the saints, not one has asked himself to be called Universal...
The prelates of the Apostolic See [that is, the bishops of Rome], which by
the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called
Universal.. But yet NOT ONE OF THEM has ever wished to be called by such a
title, or seized upon this ill-advised name..."
Here we have an Orthodox bishop of Rome and true pope, Gregory the
Great, called the "Dialogist" by Orthodox Christians, a saint accepted by
BOTH Orthodox and Roman Catholics, one who possessed luminous intellectual,
spiritual, administrative and theological talents. He opens his mouth to
speak on the subject of authority in the Church, and what does he say?
Does he proclaim "All those in submission to me may be saved"? Does he say
"Only I, as Bishop of Rome, may hold the title 'Universal', because my
'infallible teaching authority' is to be firmly believed by all the
faithful"? He does not. Quite the contrary, he speaks of Peter and the
other apostles as being "but heads of PARTICULAR communities." He further
says that NOT ONE of his predecessors in the See of Rome had ever presumed
to be called "Universal".
We should compare this with Latin Canon law (1325,par.2): "If,
finally, anyone denies that he is subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or if he
refuses communion with those members of the Church who are subject to him,
he is schismatic." Would not St. Gregory the Great ask "Why?" No mention is
made in this Canon Law of fidelity to the dogmas of the Faith, to Sacred
Tradition, or Church Councils -- only that one be "SUBJECT TO THE SUPREME
PONTIFF." How many holy fathers would rise up to ask, "What if the pope
teaches heresy?" Roman Catholics reply that the pope is infallible; he
cannot teach error. Yet it is a fact that popes have taught error.
Our great Orthodox pastoral saint, John of Kronstadt, said: "The
cause of ALL THE ERRORS of the Roman Catholic Church is pride, and belief
that the pope is the real head of the church and, what is more, that he is
infallible." Clearly, the Roman pontiffs are prepared and even willing to
accept modernist deviations of all sorts; any and everything, in fact, will
they compromise or relinquish EXCEPT the very papacy itself. Theologians
are allowed to blaspheme, and clergy are permitted to espouse Marxism --
but the PAPACY rides on, unchanged, powerful, and still asking its claim to
be universality! As Archimandrite Constantine of Jordanville has written:
"The Catholic sees before him not only a picture of the crumbling
of that Whole by which he was accustomed to exhaust his understanding of
Truth. He sees a notorious, obvious, boundless transformation of the very
concept of Truth, which finally turns out to be nothing more than the
papacy itself. THE PAPACY IS READY TO COVER OVER EVERYTHING THAT BEARS THE
NAME OF 'CHRISTIANITY'."
Because she has until recently existed outside the mainstream of
Western history, culture and ideas, Eastern Orthodoxy has an unique
perspective and can give Roman Catholics an objective understanding of
their present situation. When Catholics ask why this anti-Christian,
revolutionary spirit has invaded their church, we Orthodox Christians
reply: Is there perhaps an inner affinity between revolution and Roman
Catholicism, an affinity which Catholics cannot see because they are so
close to it?
The 19th century Russian Orthodox layman and writer, Dostoyevsky,
understood this "inner affinity" quite well and wrote about it in his
"Diary of a Writer". As a youth he had shared the socialist dream (and was
even sent to Siberia for his political beliefs; during this exile he began
his conversion to Orthodoxy). He has provided a succinct analysis of the
"affinity" between revolution and Roman Catholicism. He saw the French
socialism of his day was an attempt to live "without Catholicism and
without its gods -- a protest which actually began at the end of the last
century [at the time of the French Revolution]." But this "protest" against
Catholicism was actually "nothing but the truest and most direct
continuation of the Catholic idea, its fullest, most final realization...
French socialism is nothing else but a COMPULSORY communion of mankind --
an idea which dates back to ancient Rome and which was fully conserved in
Catholicism."
In other words, the old pagan concept of universal unity of 'Pax
Romana', has survived and is given new strength by the Roman Catholic
Church because the Latin Church...strives for UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGNTY."
"Roman Catholicism, which long ago sold out Christ for earthly rule, has
compelled mankind to turn away from itself; thus she is the prime cause of
Europe's materialism and atheism... Socialism has for its aim the solution
of the destinies of mankind not in accord with Christ, but without God and
Christ." Socialism, says Dostoyevsky, was inevitably and naturally
generated by the Catholic Church itself, because it LOST THE CHRISTIAN
PRINCIPLE OF GOD-CENTEREDNESS.
He further predicted that "the pope will go to all...on foot and
barefooted, and he will teach them that everything the socialists teach
and strive for is contained in the Gospel; that up till now the time
had not been ripe for them to learn this; but that now the time has
come and he, the pope, will surrender Christ to them, saying: 'What you
need is a united front against the enemy. Unite, then, under my power,
since I alone -- among all the powers and potentates of the world --
am UNIVERSAL; and let us go together!'"
Dostoyevsky wrote these amazing words in 1877. Pius IX was then
pope; the 'Syllabus of Errors' had recently been issued; Catholicism was at
its most "reactionary", and socialism had been roundly condemned from the
papal throne. Dostoyevsky was not an "oracle" -- he was simply a devout
Orthodox layman who was very concerned about world events and their
spiritual meaning. Thus, he was able to penetrate to the very essence of
Catholicism, the papacy. We can see that his "prophecies" about the pope
are already coming true in our day.
Lest anyone think I am exaggerating the role of the papacy, let me
quote from three contemporary non-Catholic papal sympathizers -- the first
a Jewish theologian, the second an Anglican bishop, and lastly an English
"ecumenical" news-weekly:
1. Following the death of Pope Paul, Jacob Neusner commented:
"Paul made the papacy a truly 'international force', in a way which, before
his day, the world could not have imagined...[Paul] shaped a vision 'worthy
of the world's attention.'"
2. Michael Marshall, the Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, went a step
further when he issued this appeal to non-Catholics in the summer of 1978
(BEFORE the death of Paul VI): "For the day must surely come when all the
Christians are prepared to consider again...'a pope for all Christians'...
This is THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION FACING ALL CHRISTIANS of all
persuasions today. I cannot believe that history has permitted the papacy
to survive, unless it retains in some sense the potentiality of being a
VISIBLE HEAD of the Church on earth."
3. The non-denominational English publication Christian World
announced the death of Pope John-Paul I with this large headline: A POPE
FOR ALL CHRISTIANS. The text spoke of how John-Paul's "sudden death hurt
the whole family of man." It concluded with these words: "His death
challenges the cardinals to continue the search for a pope who will be
accepted as THE SPIRITUAL LEADER OF ALL CHRISTIANS, NO MATTER WHAT CHURCH
THEY BELONG TO. This development of ecumenism is preparing the way for a
leader who can be a center of unity which is fully catholic."
Who would have thought twenty, fifteen, or even ten years ago, that
non-Catholics would be sincerely wishing to be 'led' by the pope of Rome?
Is it possible that, after all these centuries, the papacy is close to its
moment of greatest triumph?
And is it only a coincidence that numerous heresies, both old and
new, are, together with evil political ideas, CONVERGING on the person and
position of the bishop of Rome? Is it coincidence that the news media
(especially television) has given unparalleled coverage to the deaths and
elections of two recent popes -- with a world-wide audience estimated at
one billion? Is it by chance that for the FIRST time, Soviet television
has broadcast a "religious service" (the papal Mass from the Sistine Chapel
on the day after John-Paul II's election)? Is it a coincidence that among
those attending the inaugural Mass of John-Paul II were Donald Coggan, the
Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury (the first time this has happened since
before the English Reformation), and numerous representatives or heads of
other non-Catholic churches?
The bishop of Woolwich also wrote in his appeal that "it all
depends on what you mean by the papacy... A 'pope for all Christians'
[does not] necessarily mean all the trappings of the medieval papacy." Was
it then just coincidental that the two successors of Paul VI disdained a
"coronation", laid aside the papal tiara, the ostrich-feather fans, and
other "trappings of a medieval papacy" in favor of a "simple installation"
-- no longer "Supreme Pontiff", but now "only" the "UNIVERSAL SHEPHERD"?
Political commentators like Leopold Tyrmand have for long observed
that Catholicism has become "a modish fabric around the left-liberal
principle" -- but now it has gone beyond that, for the papacy appears to
have the "organizational task", according to Archimandrite Constantine of
Jordanville, "of preparing the throne of the antichrist."
This last will be most repugnant to sensitive Roman Catholics. But
it is an honest and perceptive observation made by an Orthodox priest-monk
whose purpose is not at all to turn Catholics away in disgust, but to
awaken them to the REALITY of what is going on before their very eyes.
Orthodox Christianity, which has been living for two thousand years
on the very edge of eternity, faced over and over again with virtual
extinction by different conquerors and heretical movements, nourished even
in our own times by the blood of martyrs, the myriad martyrs of the
Bolshevik oppression in Russia and the other countries of the East, has
survived intact and gloriously pure, her eyes focused steadily on the end
of the ages and the Second Coming of Christ. As a result, Orthodoxy is
keenly aware of the meaning of contemporary events.
She has preserved the ancient Scriptural prophecies, and also the
prophecies of many holy fathers and saints through the ages, concerning the
Last Days. She knows that antichrist will come when the world is at last
united and ready for him. That time is not yet here, but it is rapidly
approaching, and the papacy is the one institution in today's world which
can and does (as we have seen) command the attention of the entire world,
Christian AND non-Christian. [Events of 1990 may be observed to make even
these words, written a dozen years ago, appear prophetic and more to the
point than ever].
As Gary MacEoin observed: "The Vatican is going to be in the world
limelight in a NEW WAY." To what purpose? In order to show forth the true
Christ, Who alone can forgive, heal and save? Or will the world soon hear
a voice saying, "Unite under MY power, since I alone am universal: and let
us go together!"
HOPE FOR THE DROWNING
I have written at length about the doctrinal corruption, left-wing
ideology, and even scandal in the church of Rome. This is, obviously, a
significant part of what is going on. But there is another side, one
scarcely spoken of today: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF ALL THIS ON HUMAN SOULS?
Who can calculate the toll being taken among so many Roman
Catholics who no longer feel that they belong to their old church? Daily
life is so hard and its demands so great that deep distress occurs when a
man no longer feels sure of where the truth is. In a letter to the editor
of a national publication one Catholic wrote: "It seems to me that most
laymen are somewhat lost...that there is a great emphasis on community
life, at the expense of a DEEPLY FELT PERSONAL SPIRITUAL LIFE."
At some point, every man demands a satisfying insight into the pro-
found questions of life. Increasingly, Catholics are recognizing that they
can no longer turn to their church for these answers; their sense of fore-
boding, frustration and insecurity is extreme. Where, they ask, is the
Truth? Is it here, or there; with this bishop or that pope? Above all,
WHERE CAN I FIND CHRIST?
Dostoyevsky wrote, "the lost image of Christ, in all the light of
its purity, is preserved in Orthodoxy." This is my message to Roman
Catholic readers. Orthodoxy is the Church you thought you belonged to when
you were faithful to pre-Vatican II Catholicism. But even then it was not
what it seemed: your church is collapsing now because it started its path
of apostasy a good nine centuries or more ago.
For that reason, we Orthodox Christians are not surprised at what
we see going on in today's Catholicism. Like a branch, which has been cut
from the living tree, Rome had the outward appearance of life for many
centuries after the Schism, even though life-giving sap had ceased to flow
in her. But now even the outward appearance testifies that this branch is
truly dead. A righteous one of recent times, Archbishop John of San
Francisco (+1966), described it this way:
"While the Orthodox Church humbly confesses what it has received
from Christ and the apostles, the Roman Church dares to add to it,
sometimes from 'zeal not according to knowledge'[Rom 10:2]. That "the
gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church [Matt 16:18] is
promised only to the True, Universal Church; but upon those who have fallen
away from it are fulfilled the words, "As the branch cannot bear fruit of
itself, except it abide in the vine, so neither can ye, except ye abide in
Me [Jn 15:4]."
Speaking about this, Fr. Nicholas Deputatov writes: "Falling away
from the Orthodox Church leads to the cessation of spiritual life, the
cessation of development, of the growth of moral personality, and leads to
spiritual death. Only in the Church is it possible to have happiness and
blessedness as the consequence of inward perfection."
More than one Catholic has found comfort in these words of the
great Orthodox Father, St. Basil the Great: "Those of the laity who are
sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety... The
people have left their houses of prayer and assemble in the deserts...
because they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven." Increasing
numbers of Roman Catholics are applying these words to their own situation,
starting "underground" chapters all over the world.
But I must say to you, avoid your "places" of impiety" as you value
your souls. But seek also to be joined to the ORTHODOX FAITH to which St.
Basil, whom you value, gave undying witness by his life and writings! The
Orthodox Church IS the Catholic Church, in the full and true meaning of the
word. She has never departed from the revealed Faith, and never
compromised the Truth. Fr. Nicholas says that "she has not bartered
Orthodoxy, in order to become fashionable among men, to be recognized by
the powerful of this world. No; in poverty and in the humility of her
earthly banishment she went out over the whole face of the earth, singing
of the heavenly calling of all peoples to the Kingdom of Christ, not of
this world. And now, being filled up with new tribes and generations (in
the diaspora), she bears the triumphant banner of the greatest value given
to man on earth: True, undistorted Orthodoxy."
It is in this Church that you will at last find Christ, in all of
His radiant and pure Divinity, for, even more than correct doctrine,
Orthodoxy teaches the very WAY TO SALVATION! In the words of the late
Archbishop Andrew of Novo-Diveyevo(+1978): "The most important thing is to
create a pure heart and keep it that way. Here there can be no talk of
reforms. The Lord Himself has already given us everything needful in His
Church." Archbishop Andrew remembered what his own teacher, the clairvoyant
Elder Nectarius of Optina Monastery, had told him at the height of the
Russian Revolution, when everything was collapsing around them: "It is the
Divine that must be our concern; it must enter into all sides of our life."
Thus, in utter simplicity, the Orthodox fathers, saints, ascetics and
martyrs of all ages can show you HOW TO BELIEVE, how to acquire the Holy
Spirit of God, and how to save your soul.
Many of you will think that my confession of Orthodoxy is just my
own opinion (in which case it would be worth nothing). It is not my
opinion; it is the experience of the apostles and saints from the earliest
times until our own: the Orthodox Church is not nourished by opinion or by
what is "fashionable", but by the living experience of the saints. The
saints and fathers actually LIVED the experience of God; this enabled them
fully to express the spiritual beauty of Christ's Church and witness to it.
As St. John of Kronstadt writes: "The holy men of God would not betray the
Faith by even so much as a word."
If you wonder about what has been written here, but are not
convinced, then turn to God and His all-pure Mother in prayer, fasting and
tears. Ask God about Orthodoxy, and He will reveal the truth to you just
as He has revealed it to countless others. As pious Roman Catholics, you
sought true life and spiritual food. You grieve and weep now because for
nourishment you are being given stones instead of bread. But St. John of
Kronstadt also says: "The food of the mind is truth; the food of the heart
is blessedness." Therefore, come to the Orthodox Church: "she will give
you all this in plenty, for she possesses it superabundantly. She is THE
PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH, because.... she teaches the way which
leads to eternal life."
Orthodoxy is calling to you: COME UNTO ME, ALL YE THAT LABOR AND
ARE HEAVY LADEN, AND I WILL GIVE YOU REST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+
+
+++++
+
+
+