CHRISTIANITY OR THE PAPACY? - An Appeal to Roman = Catholics

From: Subject: CHRISTIANITY OR THE PAPACY? - An Appeal to Roman Catholics Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:40:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.orthodoxcatechism.com/One/papacy.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 CHRISTIANITY OR THE PAPACY? - An Appeal to Roman = Catholics
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
++++++++
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                 +
                                 +
                               +++++
                                 +
                                 +
                                 +