Home
Calendar
Latest images
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Log in
Electrical TheologyAdmin- Posts : 29
Join date : 2023-05-02
Age : 19 
The Real History Of “Orthodoxy” - vaticancatholic.com
Sun May 28, 2023 9:07 pm
The Real History Of “Orthodoxy” - vaticancatholic.com
(Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=WCURDSRz6D0&ab_channel=vaticancatholic.com)
[NOTE: The following text is an almost 1:1 transcript of vaticancatholic.com's video. This is for educational purposes only and I do not endorse the things stated by Peter Dimond in this transcript. He is a known sedevacantist and thus a heretic in the Catholic Church. Because I will use this transcript for personal research purposes, I have left out his nonsensical sedevacantist ramblings. God bless.]
Following King Solomon's death in 931 BC, the 10 northern tribes rebelled against the United Monarchy of Israel. They formed what became known as the "Kingdom of Israel" or "The Kingdom of Samaria, while the Southern Kingdom, which was called Judah, remained loyal to King Solomon's son, Rehoboam. The Northern rebel kingdom of Israel had its capital in Samaria it fell into serious idolatry; It separated itself from the true worship of God by setting up two idolatrous temples or sanctuaries of its own. As a result of the Northern Kingdom's rebellion against God, its separation from the true worship, and from the true temple God punished them with total destruction of their kingdom. This was prophesied by Amos as we read,
And it happened. The king of Assyria laid siege to the sinful Northern Kingdom of Israel and destroyed it. The Kingdom of Israel ceased in 722 BC and its ten tribes became known as the ten lost tribes of Israel. The destruction of the sinful Northern Kingdom is comparable to the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire in 1453 AD on the feast of Pentecost. Not long after, so many of the Greeks had rebelled against what the Ecumenical Council of Florence and their own leaders had formally agreed to (concerning the truth of the filioque and the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction). In fact, here is a quote from Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, a prominent theologian of the Russian Orthodox church. He is a titular metropolitan in Russian Orthodoxy and a permanent member of the Synod of the Patriarch Gate of Moscow.
He admits that the council of Florence had all the traits of an Ecumenical Council:
• Endorsed and accepted by representatives of all five patriarchal sees.
• Also approved by Metrophanes II and Gregory III, Patriarchs of Constantinople.
• The staurophoroi (deacons of the main church in Constantinople) signed the bull.
Yet, he doesn't accept its teaching because he holds a radically heretical view of the reception theory. According to which, various local churches can choose not to accept the teaching of an Ecumenical Council and that a council only becomes an Ecumenical Council that binds all when enough local churches decide to adopt its teaching. That position would, of course, render null and void any authority the Church's hierarchy has to bindingly teach the people. Nevertheless, he acknowledges,
As our video on Eastern Orthodoxy and councils proves, the Orthodox churches agreed to the Bull of Union and Florence, which taught the Filioque and the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction:
That is a fact and there is no way around it. But many of the people in the Byzantine Empire were rebellious. They resisted what the Church of God and their own leaders had agreed to. It was too humbling for them to accept the institution established by Christ, namely the Papacy and the true doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit, the filioque. As a result of this obstinacy, God allowed the entire Byzantine empire to be destroyed on Pentecost, the great feast dedicated to the Holy Spirit. Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Catholic Church comments on this:
The destruction of Constantinople on the feast of Pentecost itself, which is dedicated to the Holy Spirit, was obviously a major sign from God the Catholics were correct and that Greeks were punished with destruction for their heresy.
Nevertheless, some schismatics attempt to evade this truth with fallacious arguments or outright lies. One Eastern Orthodox individual, who is actually a fraud and whose false arguments contain so many outright lies and are so poor that the coward is petrified to put his name to them, stated this:
No, that is not what we argued. Since heretics can't refute what we publish, they often misrepresent it and attack a straw man. We did not say that there was no effort to enforce the union; although the effort should and could have been better, there was an effort to enforce the Florentine Union. We specifically mentioned that the union was even officially proclaimed at the main church in Constantinople on December 12th, 1452.
That's just more evidence that the Eastern Churches officially accepted Florence. Rather, we pointed out that despite the union many of the people in general remained opposed to it. The opposition was so severe that at times the ecclesiastical authorities in favor of the union had to absent themselves from their home church. It wasn't in the hearts of so many of the people to accept what the Church had officially taught about the Papacy and the procession of the Holy Spirit because they were proud rebels.
As Eastern Orthodox historian Edward Sitchinsky notes,
It is reported that people at the time said, "Better the Turkish Turban than the Papal tiara." Well, they got what they wanted. Saint Robert Bellarmine also noted that the Greeks would frequently agree to the truth and then return to their vomit. Thus, there was an effort to enforce the Fflorentine union, but there was significant rebellion among the people to what the Ecumenical Council of the Church of God had taught.
And frankly, one witnesses the same spirit of rebellion with so many of the Eastern Orthodox today. They display profound arrogance and a lack of charity. That's because they are characterized by rebellion against the institution that Jesus Christ established: the Papacy. They lack the humility to submit to God's establishment so they create their own hierarchy, which has no authority and can forgive no one. That's whether history after separating from the Papacy is a history of increasing captivity.
The schismatics continued to lose more and more territory and more and more freedom until their empire was entirely extinguished on the Feast of the Holy Spirit. Now, some of the Eastern Orthodox make the rather desperate argument that Constantinople fell on Pentecost as a result of the union. That is, according to them, because the emperor and/or the religious authorities accepted the filioque. But that's nonsense.
Think about it. Rome had officially taught the filioque way well before Florence and the 15th century:
And even at Florence, it was the Papacy that was the most significant authority behind the union. So if God brought destruction for teaching or embracing the filioque, why did Rome and the Vatican continue to exist as Christian and unconquered by the Islamic infidels before and well after Florence. Obviously, their claim is false.
Yes, during the period there were many battles and contentions between different factions within Europe. The Papal states, Rome, and other Catholic cities were sometimes severely assaulted. The damage and death wrought by Charles V's troops assault on Rome in 1527 is a good example of that, but it was a temporary thing. That assault even had the effect of shifting the focus more toward the Counter-Reformation. Those internal European conflicts were often a way that God chastises his own people for their sins (Hebrews 12:6), which is very different from God bringing permanent destruction or subjugation to a group that he has cast off.
Despite those conflicts in Europe, unlike Constantinople and the schismatics, Rome remained unconquered by the Islamic infidels. The popes were able to continue the work of the church and sponsor evangelism, which bore abundant fruit. In fact, consider the decisive battle of Lepanto that Catholics won against the Muslims on the feast of the Holy Rosary in 1571. Some consider it to have been the most significant naval battle in history. Many believe that it and other events of the period saved the Christian West from takeover by Islam, but the pertinacious people of Constantinople did not have that success. The fact is that the people of Constantinople had a history of opposing the truth of the filioque and they were, in the end, subjugated for their rebellion. The last straw was their rejection of Florence, a council that was obviously ecumenical, and agreed to by their own representatives. As Father Adrian Fortescue commented,
The final destruction of the rebellious Kingdom, which had a history of opposition to the truth of the filioque, occurred on the Feast of the Holy Spirit to demonstrate that they had resisted the true doctrine about the Holy Spirit.
For the overwhelming biblical and patristic evidence for the filioque, see our video called "The Trinity and the Filioque". Moreover, when you consider what happened to the respective groups after the fall of Constantinople, this analysis is just further confirmed. After the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century, the Islamic Sultan put severe restrictions on the Greek schismatics.
They were forbidden from undertaking any missionary work. They were locked up, they couldn't evangelize. But what happened with Catholic countries and the Catholic kingdoms in regard to the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing the Gospel to others? Well, after the fall of Constantinople, Catholics discovered the new world and made incredible gains collectively converting millions of souls in America, Mexico, Asia, and South America. Many wonders and miracles were also worked during that period.
Yes, there were many immoral people in the Protestant revolt, but despite all of that the Catholic Church continued to do the work of the Holy Spirit and make multitudes of converts through evangelism far and wide. The Holy Spirit worked powerfully in the true Church, the Catholic Church, but the adherence of the destroyed sinful Kingdom, the Eastern schismatics, were locked down. God's verdict was in favor of the Catholics. It was the Catholic Church that evangelized the nations. Meanwhile in Constantinople,
Before we proceed, we should quickly mention that some Eastern Orthodox argue that Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople, who died during the Council of Florence, wasn't actually in favor of the Council's teaching and that the letter attributed to him was forged. First, there's no proof that the letter attributed to him was forged. Second, it wouldn't even matter because as Joseph Gill, the premier expert on Florence, points out Joseph II had already authorized his representatives to take part in the council, and act on his behalf, and they all accepted the Bull of Union:
Further, the next two successors of Joseph as Patriarch of Constantinople accepted the Bull of Union. Hence, the See of Constantinople agreed to the Union. Others also claim that in 1442 or 1443 the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem met at a council and condemned the Union, but the documents supposedly from that meeting are not genuine. As Gill's book also notes,
Although those documents are not genuine it wouldn't even matter if they were because the union had already been accepted by those sees. The Church of God cannot reverse its teaching on faith and morals. It's a fact that the Eastern Churches accepted the Bull of Union as Eastern Orthodox Bishop Timothy Ware admits about florence,
But as a result of widespread resistance among the people to what the church had taught, the Eastern Empire fell on Pentecost. Now, with Constantinople dominated by the Muslims, the center of gravity shifted North and East to Moscow. They were scattered North and East, if you will. The so-called Patriarchate of Moscow now holds great honor and authority among the Eastern Orthodox, but why? How did it get started?
Basically, it went like this: With Constantinople under the control of Muslims, the Eastern Orthodox sought a new headquarters for their schismatic hierarchy and kingdom. So Russians pressured the Patriarch of Constantinople to create a Patriarch of Moscow. In 1589 he did, but just think about how stupid this is in light of Eastern Orthodox Ecclesiology. If the Patriarch of Constantinople can simply create a new Patriarch who will then wield significant religious authority over people in Russia and even over souls as far as America and elsewhere, then the Patriarch of Constantinople de facto has universal jurisdiction. Someone can only give what he possesses; he can only confer what he has. If jurisdiction over souls in Russia, and many other places outside of Russia, ultimately proceeds from the Patriarch of Constantinople, then that See, Constantinople, must in some form possess jurisdiction over all of those territories: Russia, America, etc. That would be in fact to possess a universal jurisdiction.
So on the one hand the Orthodox claim to reject the idea that any bishop has universal jurisdiction, they call it a heresy; their autocephalous churches reflect the same view, but on the other hand their creation of new Patriarchs far and wide proves that, in practice, they embrace the idea of universal jurisdiction inherent in one see. For the jurisdiction of those various Patriarchs, outside of Constantinople, ultimately derives from Constantinople. Their actions thus demonstrate that one bishop in the Church is capable of and indeed intended to have universal jurisdiction, they simply fail to recognize that it's not the Patriarch of Constantinople or the one in Moscow, it's a valid pope, a successor of St. Peter. And even though the Orthodox think they have true jurisdiction from God over Souls, they don't since they are separated from the Papacy and the true Church. The current schism between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the patriarch of moscow further illustrates that the Eastern Orthodox position is illogical and self-refuting. A schism has broken out between them because they can't agree where the jurisdiction of one ends and the other begins.
Indeed writing in the 19th century, famed Russian philosopher Vladimir Soloviev, who converted to Catholicism, made a striking prediction about a future break between the Russian and Greek Orthodox sects. Well over 100 years ago he stated,
That came true. The Eastern Orthodox are not the Universal Church of Christ but a loose collection of sects mainly defined along ethnic lines. That's why you have the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, the Romanian, Serbian, etc. They are national autocephalous or self-governing sects. It figures that they dissolved into nationalized sects after they rejected the institution that Christ established to govern the Universal Church. Concerning much of their existence, Soloviev noted,
In 1872 the Greek Orthodox sect excommunicated the Bulgarian Orthodox sect and delivered the decision to the Russian Orthodox leadership. The Russian Orthodox decided to ignore it and remained in communion with the Bulgarians while the Greek Orthodox rejected communion with them. A similar situation happened with regard to Serbia: The government deposed the Serbian Orthodox sect's hierarchy and made a new one. The Russian Orthodox didn't accept the new hierarchy, but the Greek Orthodox did. Soloviev also noted that the spiritual condition of the adherence of these churches was very poor. He cited an ex-arc of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church who stated,
Soloviev has commented,
Matthew 16:19, considered in conjunction with Matthew 18:18, further demonstrates that St. Peter, the first pope, was given jurisdiction over all the apostles and the entire Church. This also powerfully refutes the position of the Eastern Orthodox. Matthew 16 is well known. There, Christ promises to give St. Peter, the first pope, the keys of the kingdom and says, "... whatever you bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven." But the Orthodox will often say, "Look at Matthew 18:18 where Christ says the same thing to all the apostles." ... Referring to the apostles collectively Matthew 18:18 says,
But far from contradicting the Papacy, this verse actually just further illuminates the truth of the Catholic position and refutes the Eastern Orthodox one. Here's why. There's no mention of the keys in Matthew 18:18. The keys are only promised to St. Peter as we read in Matthew 16. In Matthew 16 we also learned that people bind and loose with the keys. Let me repeat that, people bind and loose with the keys. Peter alone is given that with which one binds and looses. So when all the apostles are given authority to bind and loose, as we read in Matthew 18:18, with what will they be doing that binding and loosing? With the keys, of course. But Peter alone is given them in Matthew 16.
So what does that tell us? It tells us that the authority that all the apostles have to act is subject to Peter's distribution or restriction of the keys. Since he is given the keys, with which the others act authoritatively, he can distribute the keys to certain people or he can take away the keys. Since they need the keys to act and he's the one who has them, their authority is subject to his. So contrary to what the Orthodox think, a careful consideration of these two passages together further proves the Papacy, the teaching of Jesus Christ against which they rebel.
We see another contradiction in the Eastern Orthodox position because they readily admit that the See of Rome has a primacy of honor based on texts like Matthew 16, John 21, etc. But not one of authority they say:
But that's obviously nonsense because those texts deal with authority as we just showed. Binding, loosing, and tending the flock involve authority. So if those texts teach any primacy for the successor of St. Peter and Rome, and they admit they do, it would be, and is, one of authority/jurisdiction. Not merely of honor. Now, not too long after the schismatic Patriarchate of Moscow was established, it was eliminated in 1721 by the Tsar Peter.
And the head of this synod was a lay official so the new schismatic Patriarchate, which they intended to be their new ecclesiastical headquarters since constantinople was under Muslim domination, was abolished in 1721 and led by a lay official. It's also interesting and providential that the Tsar who eliminated the position of patriarch was named Peter. So whether they liked it or not they found themselves subject to the authority of Peter.
Concerning the situation that began under Tsar Peter, Father Adrian Fortescue wrote,
Soloviev noted that,
So they established their new schismatic Patriarchate in Moscow, but it was eliminated and the Russian Orthodox sect was placed totally under the domination of the Tsar. It's another example of their captivity. This situation lasted from about 1721 until 1917 in the Bolshevik Revolution when the Tsarist Government fell in the revolution. The schismatics quickly moved to re-establish the office of Patriarch, but the Communists soon took control of that and dominated the institution, resulting in more captivity. By 1927 the leader of the Russian Orthodox was fully behind the communist regime. On July 29th, 1927 Metropolitan Sergius, who later became Patriarch, issued a famous declaration in which he professed the absolute loyalty of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Soviet Union and to its government's interests.
As the Communists realized that they could make use of the Russian Orthodox institution, it was restored to a narrow range of activities, as long as it didn't upset the Communists too much. The Russian Orthodox church was an enslaved pseudo-Christian sect, it was a member of the heretical World Council of Churches, where it would downplay the persecution of the Soviets. They didn't have freedom. Writing of the later period under the Communists, Philip Walters noted,
It's another example of how, in so many cases, the externals of heretics conceal or distract from an empty reality. During this period the Russian Orthodox sect allowed divorce and remarriage for all kinds of reasons, which is directly contrary to the teaching of Jesus on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage (Luke 16:18). Here's the current position of the Russian Orthodox which constitutes an outrageous sacrilege and an endorsement of adultery:
Obviously that's completely incompatible with the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament on marriage (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).
In this video, we've shown that the history of Eastern Orthodoxy, following the Council of Florence, is characterized by captivity. They were captive and on the sidelines during a huge portion of crucial Church history while the Holy Spirit worked powerfully in the Catholic Church to convert multitudes. That was God's verdict and judgment on the sinful and rebellious kingdom, which is comparable to the Kingdom of Samaria.
... (sedevacantist nonsense)
Moreover, besides all of their other problems, according to pew research in Russia, which has the world's largest Orthodox population, just 6% of the Orthodox there say they attend church once a week and not even 1/5th pray daily. According to the same research, less than half of the Orthodox in America even oppose same-sex marriage and about half think abortion should be legal. That's in addition to all of their other heresies. They are not real Christians, but they have externals besides clear heresies against the Papacy, the filioque, marriage, etc ... The Russian and Greek Orthodox sects were represented at the abominable pagan Assisi prayer meeting in 1986, an event with great apocalyptic significance. As our material covers, they were represented at the later Assisi events as well.
... (sedevacantist nonsense)
(Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=WCURDSRz6D0&ab_channel=vaticancatholic.com)
[NOTE: The following text is an almost 1:1 transcript of vaticancatholic.com's video. This is for educational purposes only and I do not endorse the things stated by Peter Dimond in this transcript. He is a known sedevacantist and thus a heretic in the Catholic Church. Because I will use this transcript for personal research purposes, I have left out his nonsensical sedevacantist ramblings. God bless.]
Following King Solomon's death in 931 BC, the 10 northern tribes rebelled against the United Monarchy of Israel. They formed what became known as the "Kingdom of Israel" or "The Kingdom of Samaria, while the Southern Kingdom, which was called Judah, remained loyal to King Solomon's son, Rehoboam. The Northern rebel kingdom of Israel had its capital in Samaria it fell into serious idolatry; It separated itself from the true worship of God by setting up two idolatrous temples or sanctuaries of its own. As a result of the Northern Kingdom's rebellion against God, its separation from the true worship, and from the true temple God punished them with total destruction of their kingdom. This was prophesied by Amos as we read,
Amos 9:8
"Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord."
And it happened. The king of Assyria laid siege to the sinful Northern Kingdom of Israel and destroyed it. The Kingdom of Israel ceased in 722 BC and its ten tribes became known as the ten lost tribes of Israel. The destruction of the sinful Northern Kingdom is comparable to the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire in 1453 AD on the feast of Pentecost. Not long after, so many of the Greeks had rebelled against what the Ecumenical Council of Florence and their own leaders had formally agreed to (concerning the truth of the filioque and the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction). In fact, here is a quote from Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, a prominent theologian of the Russian Orthodox church. He is a titular metropolitan in Russian Orthodoxy and a permanent member of the Synod of the Patriarch Gate of Moscow.
He admits that the council of Florence had all the traits of an Ecumenical Council:
• Endorsed and accepted by representatives of all five patriarchal sees.
• Also approved by Metrophanes II and Gregory III, Patriarchs of Constantinople.
• The staurophoroi (deacons of the main church in Constantinople) signed the bull.
Yet, he doesn't accept its teaching because he holds a radically heretical view of the reception theory. According to which, various local churches can choose not to accept the teaching of an Ecumenical Council and that a council only becomes an Ecumenical Council that binds all when enough local churches decide to adopt its teaching. That position would, of course, render null and void any authority the Church's hierarchy has to bindingly teach the people. Nevertheless, he acknowledges,
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, The Reception of the Ecumenical Councils in the Early Church
"We come to our last example which is the Council of Florence-Ferrara (1438-39). It had all the characteristic traits of an Ecumenical council and was the most representative, as far as its attendance is concerned, in the entire history of Christianity. Delegates from all the Churches, including the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Metropolitan of Moscow, were present, not to mention the Byzantine Emperor."
As our video on Eastern Orthodoxy and councils proves, the Orthodox churches agreed to the Bull of Union and Florence, which taught the Filioque and the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Laetentur Caeli," July 6, 1439
"In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we define ... that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His own essence and His own subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration."
Sergey Dezhnyuk, Council of Florence: The Unrealized Union, 2017, p. 15
"... Greeks ... had to admit that the necessary conditions for the council to be truly ecumenical were met: it was held according to the doctrine of Pentarchy and the Byzantine Emperor was present."
That is a fact and there is no way around it. But many of the people in the Byzantine Empire were rebellious. They resisted what the Church of God and their own leaders had agreed to. It was too humbling for them to accept the institution established by Christ, namely the Papacy and the true doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit, the filioque. As a result of this obstinacy, God allowed the entire Byzantine empire to be destroyed on Pentecost, the great feast dedicated to the Holy Spirit. Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Catholic Church comments on this:
Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Christo, Book 2, Chap. 30
"In order that they [the Greeks] would understand that the reason for their destruction was pertinacity and error concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, on the very feast days themselves of the Holy Spirit Constantinople was captured by the Turks, the emperor was killed, and the empire was entirely extinguished ... Therefore many compare the Greek Church to the Kingdom of Samaria, which separated itself from the true temple, and in the end was led away into perpetual captivity."
The destruction of Constantinople on the feast of Pentecost itself, which is dedicated to the Holy Spirit, was obviously a major sign from God the Catholics were correct and that Greeks were punished with destruction for their heresy.
Bernard Granville Baker, The Passing of the Turkish Empire in Europe, pp. 43-44
"... then came Mohammaed the Conqueror, and Constantinople passed into the hands of the Turk. It was during the Feast of Pentecost, on May 29th of 1453, that Constantinople fell before the Sword of Othman."
Nevertheless, some schismatics attempt to evade this truth with fallacious arguments or outright lies. One Eastern Orthodox individual, who is actually a fraud and whose false arguments contain so many outright lies and are so poor that the coward is petrified to put his name to them, stated this:
Ubi Petrus, YouTube, MHFM/VaticanCatholic Refuted on Orthodoxy & Ecumenical Councils | When LARPing goes Wrong
"In the Dimond brother's video entitled "Eastern Orthodoxy's Fatal Flaw on Bishops and Ecumenical Councils" they argue several main points. The Dimonds claim that the city of Constantinople fell because the union was not enforced. Not only are all of these statements untrue, but they are straight-out lies."
No, that is not what we argued. Since heretics can't refute what we publish, they often misrepresent it and attack a straw man. We did not say that there was no effort to enforce the union; although the effort should and could have been better, there was an effort to enforce the Florentine Union. We specifically mentioned that the union was even officially proclaimed at the main church in Constantinople on December 12th, 1452.
That's just more evidence that the Eastern Churches officially accepted Florence. Rather, we pointed out that despite the union many of the people in general remained opposed to it. The opposition was so severe that at times the ecclesiastical authorities in favor of the union had to absent themselves from their home church. It wasn't in the hearts of so many of the people to accept what the Church had officially taught about the Papacy and the procession of the Holy Spirit because they were proud rebels.
Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1959, p. 128
"He [Mark of Ephesus] began by declaring that the present gathering was an Ecumenical Council since the Pope and his Church were present to represent the West, while from the East there was the Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople, procurators of the other Patriarchates, and the better part of the oriental Church."
As Eastern Orthodox historian Edward Sitchinsky notes,
A. Edward Siecienski, Orthodox Christianity: A Very Short Introduction, Chap. 3
"Despite the emperors' best efforts, the Florentine union remained unpopular, as the Byzantines generally believed it was 'better to die than to 'Latinize'"
It is reported that people at the time said, "Better the Turkish Turban than the Papal tiara." Well, they got what they wanted. Saint Robert Bellarmine also noted that the Greeks would frequently agree to the truth and then return to their vomit. Thus, there was an effort to enforce the Fflorentine union, but there was significant rebellion among the people to what the Ecumenical Council of the Church of God had taught.
And frankly, one witnesses the same spirit of rebellion with so many of the Eastern Orthodox today. They display profound arrogance and a lack of charity. That's because they are characterized by rebellion against the institution that Jesus Christ established: the Papacy. They lack the humility to submit to God's establishment so they create their own hierarchy, which has no authority and can forgive no one. That's whether history after separating from the Papacy is a history of increasing captivity.
A. Edward Siecienski, Orthodox Christianity: A Very Short Introduction, Chap. 3
"By the 15th century the once mighty Byzantine empire was reduced to the city of Constantinople in a few small territories in Greece."
The schismatics continued to lose more and more territory and more and more freedom until their empire was entirely extinguished on the Feast of the Holy Spirit. Now, some of the Eastern Orthodox make the rather desperate argument that Constantinople fell on Pentecost as a result of the union. That is, according to them, because the emperor and/or the religious authorities accepted the filioque. But that's nonsense.
Think about it. Rome had officially taught the filioque way well before Florence and the 15th century:
Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274
"... we declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but from one principle ..."
And even at Florence, it was the Papacy that was the most significant authority behind the union. So if God brought destruction for teaching or embracing the filioque, why did Rome and the Vatican continue to exist as Christian and unconquered by the Islamic infidels before and well after Florence. Obviously, their claim is false.
Yes, during the period there were many battles and contentions between different factions within Europe. The Papal states, Rome, and other Catholic cities were sometimes severely assaulted. The damage and death wrought by Charles V's troops assault on Rome in 1527 is a good example of that, but it was a temporary thing. That assault even had the effect of shifting the focus more toward the Counter-Reformation. Those internal European conflicts were often a way that God chastises his own people for their sins (Hebrews 12:6), which is very different from God bringing permanent destruction or subjugation to a group that he has cast off.
Despite those conflicts in Europe, unlike Constantinople and the schismatics, Rome remained unconquered by the Islamic infidels. The popes were able to continue the work of the church and sponsor evangelism, which bore abundant fruit. In fact, consider the decisive battle of Lepanto that Catholics won against the Muslims on the feast of the Holy Rosary in 1571. Some consider it to have been the most significant naval battle in history. Many believe that it and other events of the period saved the Christian West from takeover by Islam, but the pertinacious people of Constantinople did not have that success. The fact is that the people of Constantinople had a history of opposing the truth of the filioque and they were, in the end, subjugated for their rebellion. The last straw was their rejection of Florence, a council that was obviously ecumenical, and agreed to by their own representatives. As Father Adrian Fortescue commented,
Fr. Adrian Fortescue, Orthodox Eastern Church, 1908
"It [Florence] was held in the presence of the Pope, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the legates of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. There were many more Easterns present than there had been Latins at any of the early synods that we all agree on calling ecumenical ... so that except, perhaps, Nicaea in 325, no council has ever had such a clear right to be considered ecumenical."
The final destruction of the rebellious Kingdom, which had a history of opposition to the truth of the filioque, occurred on the Feast of the Holy Spirit to demonstrate that they had resisted the true doctrine about the Holy Spirit.
St. Athanasius, First Epistle to Serapion #21, AD 357 (Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius, p. 220)
"... the Spirit, in turn, receives from the Son; 'He will take from what is mine,' he says, 'and declare it to you' [John 16] ... Therefore, since the Spirit has the same relation of nature and order with respect to the Son that the Son has with respect to the Father, how can the one who calls the Spirit a creature escape the necessity of thinking the same about the Son?"
For the overwhelming biblical and patristic evidence for the filioque, see our video called "The Trinity and the Filioque". Moreover, when you consider what happened to the respective groups after the fall of Constantinople, this analysis is just further confirmed. After the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century, the Islamic Sultan put severe restrictions on the Greek schismatics.
Bishop Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books, 1993, p. 88
"... the Church [in Constantinople] was allowed to undertake no missionary work, and it was a crime to convert a Muslim to the Christian faith."
They were forbidden from undertaking any missionary work. They were locked up, they couldn't evangelize. But what happened with Catholic countries and the Catholic kingdoms in regard to the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing the Gospel to others? Well, after the fall of Constantinople, Catholics discovered the new world and made incredible gains collectively converting millions of souls in America, Mexico, Asia, and South America. Many wonders and miracles were also worked during that period.
Yes, there were many immoral people in the Protestant revolt, but despite all of that the Catholic Church continued to do the work of the Holy Spirit and make multitudes of converts through evangelism far and wide. The Holy Spirit worked powerfully in the true Church, the Catholic Church, but the adherence of the destroyed sinful Kingdom, the Eastern schismatics, were locked down. God's verdict was in favor of the Catholics. It was the Catholic Church that evangelized the nations. Meanwhile in Constantinople,
A. Edward Siecienski, Orthodox Christianity: A Very Short Introduction, Chap. 3
"The office of patriarch, now granted by the sultan only to those deemed sufficiently reliable, was often sold to the highest bidder, leading at times to a succession of candidates who sought the position solely for personal gain."
Before we proceed, we should quickly mention that some Eastern Orthodox argue that Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople, who died during the Council of Florence, wasn't actually in favor of the Council's teaching and that the letter attributed to him was forged. First, there's no proof that the letter attributed to him was forged. Second, it wouldn't even matter because as Joseph Gill, the premier expert on Florence, points out Joseph II had already authorized his representatives to take part in the council, and act on his behalf, and they all accepted the Bull of Union:
Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1959, pp. 110-111
"Owing to the Patriarch's absence through ill health ... it had been agreed that a pronouncement should be read showing his consent to the opening of the Council and authorizing the ecclesiastics of his Church to take part. That was done in Greek and Latin ... when, too, the credentials of the procurators of the other eastern Patriarchs were exhibited."
Further, the next two successors of Joseph as Patriarch of Constantinople accepted the Bull of Union. Hence, the See of Constantinople agreed to the Union. Others also claim that in 1442 or 1443 the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem met at a council and condemned the Union, but the documents supposedly from that meeting are not genuine. As Gill's book also notes,
Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1959, pp. 354
"Of this synod Archbishop Papadopoulos notes: 'As is well known, this synod did actually meet, but the documents about it that are preserved are not genuine' ... If it did in fact meet, it is surprising that it had such little repercussion in anti-unionist circles ... Scholarius was still in ignorance of it at the end of 1448 ..."
Although those documents are not genuine it wouldn't even matter if they were because the union had already been accepted by those sees. The Church of God cannot reverse its teaching on faith and morals. It's a fact that the Eastern Churches accepted the Bull of Union as Eastern Orthodox Bishop Timothy Ware admits about florence,
Bishop Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 70-71
"A second reunion council was held at Florence in 1438-9. The Emperor John VIII ... attended in person, together with the Patriarch of Constantinople and a large delegation from the Byzantine Church, as well as representatives from the other Orthodox Churches ... a formula of union was drawn up, covering the Filioque, Purgatory, 'azymes', and the Papal claims; and this was signed by all the Orthodox present at the council except one ... Thus, in matters of doctrine the Orthodox accepted the Papal claims ... they accepted the doctrine of the ... Procession of the Holy Spirit ... they accepted the Roman teaching on Purgatory..."
But as a result of widespread resistance among the people to what the church had taught, the Eastern Empire fell on Pentecost. Now, with Constantinople dominated by the Muslims, the center of gravity shifted North and East to Moscow. They were scattered North and East, if you will. The so-called Patriarchate of Moscow now holds great honor and authority among the Eastern Orthodox, but why? How did it get started?
Basically, it went like this: With Constantinople under the control of Muslims, the Eastern Orthodox sought a new headquarters for their schismatic hierarchy and kingdom. So Russians pressured the Patriarch of Constantinople to create a Patriarch of Moscow. In 1589 he did, but just think about how stupid this is in light of Eastern Orthodox Ecclesiology. If the Patriarch of Constantinople can simply create a new Patriarch who will then wield significant religious authority over people in Russia and even over souls as far as America and elsewhere, then the Patriarch of Constantinople de facto has universal jurisdiction. Someone can only give what he possesses; he can only confer what he has. If jurisdiction over souls in Russia, and many other places outside of Russia, ultimately proceeds from the Patriarch of Constantinople, then that See, Constantinople, must in some form possess jurisdiction over all of those territories: Russia, America, etc. That would be in fact to possess a universal jurisdiction.
So on the one hand the Orthodox claim to reject the idea that any bishop has universal jurisdiction, they call it a heresy; their autocephalous churches reflect the same view, but on the other hand their creation of new Patriarchs far and wide proves that, in practice, they embrace the idea of universal jurisdiction inherent in one see. For the jurisdiction of those various Patriarchs, outside of Constantinople, ultimately derives from Constantinople. Their actions thus demonstrate that one bishop in the Church is capable of and indeed intended to have universal jurisdiction, they simply fail to recognize that it's not the Patriarch of Constantinople or the one in Moscow, it's a valid pope, a successor of St. Peter. And even though the Orthodox think they have true jurisdiction from God over Souls, they don't since they are separated from the Papacy and the true Church. The current schism between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the patriarch of moscow further illustrates that the Eastern Orthodox position is illogical and self-refuting. A schism has broken out between them because they can't agree where the jurisdiction of one ends and the other begins.
EWTN, News Nightly, Unknown Video
"The Russian Orthodox Church has broken ties with the leader of the worldwide Orthodox community. The fight is being compared to the greatest Orthodox split since the schism with Catholicism in 1054. Why? The worldwide leader Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I last week granted Ukrainian clerics their independence from Moscow. They had been under Russian leadership since the 1600s. Russia's metropolitan Hilarion calls the decision 'lawless' and 'canonically void' and says it might lead to a deep religious rift in Ukraine."
Indeed writing in the 19th century, famed Russian philosopher Vladimir Soloviev, who converted to Catholicism, made a striking prediction about a future break between the Russian and Greek Orthodox sects. Well over 100 years ago he stated,
Vladimir Soloviev, Russia And The Universal Church, Part 1, 1889
"... for on the day on which the Russian and Greek churches formally break with one another the whole world will see that the Ecumenical Eastern Church is a mere fiction and that there exists in the East nothing but isolated national Churches."
That came true. The Eastern Orthodox are not the Universal Church of Christ but a loose collection of sects mainly defined along ethnic lines. That's why you have the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, the Romanian, Serbian, etc. They are national autocephalous or self-governing sects. It figures that they dissolved into nationalized sects after they rejected the institution that Christ established to govern the Universal Church. Concerning much of their existence, Soloviev noted,
Vladimir Soloviev, Russia And The Universal Church, Part 1, 1889
"It need hardly be added that all these national Churches are simply State Churches entirely without any kind of ecclesiastical freedom."
In 1872 the Greek Orthodox sect excommunicated the Bulgarian Orthodox sect and delivered the decision to the Russian Orthodox leadership. The Russian Orthodox decided to ignore it and remained in communion with the Bulgarians while the Greek Orthodox rejected communion with them. A similar situation happened with regard to Serbia: The government deposed the Serbian Orthodox sect's hierarchy and made a new one. The Russian Orthodox didn't accept the new hierarchy, but the Greek Orthodox did. Soloviev also noted that the spiritual condition of the adherence of these churches was very poor. He cited an ex-arc of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church who stated,
Vladimir Soloviev, Russia And The Universal Church, Part 1, 1889
"The mass of the people are cold and indifferent, while the educated classes are definitely hostile to everything sacred; it is only fear of the Russians that prevents the abolition of the Church in Bulgaria."
Soloviev has commented,
Vladimir Soloviev, Russia And The Universal Church, Part 1, 1889
"There is no need for us to show that the religious condition of Romania and Greece is essentially the same as that of the Serbs and Bulgarians."
Matthew 16:19, considered in conjunction with Matthew 18:18, further demonstrates that St. Peter, the first pope, was given jurisdiction over all the apostles and the entire Church. This also powerfully refutes the position of the Eastern Orthodox. Matthew 16 is well known. There, Christ promises to give St. Peter, the first pope, the keys of the kingdom and says, "... whatever you bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven." But the Orthodox will often say, "Look at Matthew 18:18 where Christ says the same thing to all the apostles." ... Referring to the apostles collectively Matthew 18:18 says,
Matthew 18:18
"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
But far from contradicting the Papacy, this verse actually just further illuminates the truth of the Catholic position and refutes the Eastern Orthodox one. Here's why. There's no mention of the keys in Matthew 18:18. The keys are only promised to St. Peter as we read in Matthew 16. In Matthew 16 we also learned that people bind and loose with the keys. Let me repeat that, people bind and loose with the keys. Peter alone is given that with which one binds and looses. So when all the apostles are given authority to bind and loose, as we read in Matthew 18:18, with what will they be doing that binding and loosing? With the keys, of course. But Peter alone is given them in Matthew 16.
So what does that tell us? It tells us that the authority that all the apostles have to act is subject to Peter's distribution or restriction of the keys. Since he is given the keys, with which the others act authoritatively, he can distribute the keys to certain people or he can take away the keys. Since they need the keys to act and he's the one who has them, their authority is subject to his. So contrary to what the Orthodox think, a careful consideration of these two passages together further proves the Papacy, the teaching of Jesus Christ against which they rebel.
We see another contradiction in the Eastern Orthodox position because they readily admit that the See of Rome has a primacy of honor based on texts like Matthew 16, John 21, etc. But not one of authority they say:
Bishop Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 27-28
"The primacy which Rome enjoys takes its origin from three factors ... The Orthodox Church acknowledges Peter as the first among the apostles: it does not forget the celebrated 'Petrine texts' in the Gospels (Matthew xvi, 18-19; Luke xxii, 32; John xxi, 15-17) ... most [Orthodox theologians] ... admit that the Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor in a special sense."
But that's obviously nonsense because those texts deal with authority as we just showed. Binding, loosing, and tending the flock involve authority. So if those texts teach any primacy for the successor of St. Peter and Rome, and they admit they do, it would be, and is, one of authority/jurisdiction. Not merely of honor. Now, not too long after the schismatic Patriarchate of Moscow was established, it was eliminated in 1721 by the Tsar Peter.
Britannica, Peter | Russian Orthodox Metropolitan
"In 1721, Tsar Peter I abolished the Patriarchate of Moscow and replaced it with the Holy Governing Synod, which was modeled after the state-controlled synods of the Lutheran church in Sweden and Prussia [and was tightly controlled by the state]."
And the head of this synod was a lay official so the new schismatic Patriarchate, which they intended to be their new ecclesiastical headquarters since constantinople was under Muslim domination, was abolished in 1721 and led by a lay official. It's also interesting and providential that the Tsar who eliminated the position of patriarch was named Peter. So whether they liked it or not they found themselves subject to the authority of Peter.
Concerning the situation that began under Tsar Peter, Father Adrian Fortescue wrote,
Fr. Adrian Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, 1908
"No sovereign has ever been more absolutely master of a Church than is the Czar. In the first place the Holy Synod decides every ecclesiastical question in Russia, the preservation of the faith, religious instruction, censorship of all books that concern religion all, questions of ritual ... Peter copied the idea of the Lutheran Consistories in his synod ... And the chief man in the Holy Synod is the Procurator ... a layman, generally a soldier, appointed by the Government to see that its laws are carried out. Russians themselves realize how completely their Church now lies under the heel of the autocracy."
Soloviev noted that,
Vladimir Soloviev, Russia And The Universal Church, Part 1, 1889
"... all communications ('every document' according to the Russian expression) concerning Church affairs were to be transmitted to the Procurator."
So they established their new schismatic Patriarchate in Moscow, but it was eliminated and the Russian Orthodox sect was placed totally under the domination of the Tsar. It's another example of their captivity. This situation lasted from about 1721 until 1917 in the Bolshevik Revolution when the Tsarist Government fell in the revolution. The schismatics quickly moved to re-establish the office of Patriarch, but the Communists soon took control of that and dominated the institution, resulting in more captivity. By 1927 the leader of the Russian Orthodox was fully behind the communist regime. On July 29th, 1927 Metropolitan Sergius, who later became Patriarch, issued a famous declaration in which he professed the absolute loyalty of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Soviet Union and to its government's interests.
Philip Walters, The Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet State, 1986
"By 1939 the Russian Orthodox Church had virtually ceased as an institution."
As the Communists realized that they could make use of the Russian Orthodox institution, it was restored to a narrow range of activities, as long as it didn't upset the Communists too much. The Russian Orthodox church was an enslaved pseudo-Christian sect, it was a member of the heretical World Council of Churches, where it would downplay the persecution of the Soviets. They didn't have freedom. Writing of the later period under the Communists, Philip Walters noted,
Philip Walters, The Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet State, 1986
"The Russian Orthodox Church exists in the Soviet Union as a visible institution, and visitors to the major cities are regularly and easily impressed by the magnificence of liturgical worship and the fact that the churches are full ... Yet the Russian Orthodox Church is in fact deeply deprived and its opportunity for making a creative Christian contribution in society itself virtually non-existent."
It's another example of how, in so many cases, the externals of heretics conceal or distract from an empty reality. During this period the Russian Orthodox sect allowed divorce and remarriage for all kinds of reasons, which is directly contrary to the teaching of Jesus on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage (Luke 16:18). Here's the current position of the Russian Orthodox which constitutes an outrageous sacrilege and an endorsement of adultery:
Kevin Schembri, Oikonomia, Divorce and Remarriage in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2017, Chap. 4
"... nowadays, the Russian Orthodox Church recognizes the following thirteen grounds for divorce: apostasy; adultery or certain sexual practices against nature, such as sodomy antecedent to marriage; leprosy and syphilis; absence of the spouse for three continuous years, and two in case of war or a calamity; criminal sentence that strips the spouse of civic rights; life threat on the spouse or the children; incest, prostitution or abuse of the spouse in need; celebration of another marriage; insane psychic disturbance; intentional and total abandonment of a spouse; alcoholism or drug addiction that is medically confirmed; abortion committed without the consent of the husband."
Obviously that's completely incompatible with the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament on marriage (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).
In this video, we've shown that the history of Eastern Orthodoxy, following the Council of Florence, is characterized by captivity. They were captive and on the sidelines during a huge portion of crucial Church history while the Holy Spirit worked powerfully in the Catholic Church to convert multitudes. That was God's verdict and judgment on the sinful and rebellious kingdom, which is comparable to the Kingdom of Samaria.
... (sedevacantist nonsense)
Moreover, besides all of their other problems, according to pew research in Russia, which has the world's largest Orthodox population, just 6% of the Orthodox there say they attend church once a week and not even 1/5th pray daily. According to the same research, less than half of the Orthodox in America even oppose same-sex marriage and about half think abortion should be legal. That's in addition to all of their other heresies. They are not real Christians, but they have externals besides clear heresies against the Papacy, the filioque, marriage, etc ... The Russian and Greek Orthodox sects were represented at the abominable pagan Assisi prayer meeting in 1986, an event with great apocalyptic significance. As our material covers, they were represented at the later Assisi events as well.
... (sedevacantist nonsense)
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum