The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
The Abomination of Desolation Standing in the Holy Place
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_321034163

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Warning: the following text was written specifically to help Christians make sense of the “hijacked vocabulary” used in the discussion of the current attempts by the Empire to take control of the Orthodox people of the Ukraine. For atheists/agnostics this discussion will offer just some irrelevant and boring mumbo-jumbo with no relevance to the lofty realms of enlightened modern positivism.

Introduction

The latest move by the Anglo-Zionist Empire in the Ukraine is truly an exceptionally ugly and dangerous one: it appears that the Patriarch of Constantinople will soon grant its full independence to the so-called “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate”. This move is openly directed against the current biggest ecclesiastical body in the Ukraine the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate” and it will almost certainly lead to bloodshed and massacres similar to what took place in Odessa on May 2nd 2014: the Ukronazis will use force (riot police or even Nazi death squads) to forcibly seize the churches, cathedrals, monasteries and other buildings and properties currently owned by the Moscow Patriarchate.

There are many articles written about this development, but almost all of them are written from a secular point of view, even when written by supposedly Christian or Orthodox authors. The paradoxical element here is that a lot of theological terms are used by authors who have only a very vague idea of what these terms really mean. I have no desire to enter into this conversation and use the pseudo-spiritual reference framework typically used by such commentators and what I propose to do today is much more modest: I want to explain the original, Christian, meaning of the terms which are (mis-)used on a daily basis.

The reader will then decide how to apply them, or not, to the current crisis.

I will begin by the very basics.

The basics

The term “Christian” can mean one of two things: first, it can designate any person or group calling itself Christian. When used in this sense, the word “Christian” includes not only the all main Christian denominations, but also Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, the Mormons or even the 17% of British Christians who do not believe in the resurrection of Christ. Basically, in this context the term has no objective meaning whatsoever and this is how the term is mostly used nowadays.

There is also another use of the word “Christian”. This second definition is based on two very ancient statements. The first by Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (4th century) and the second one by Saint Vincent of Lérins (5th century). The first one says that the Christian faith is the faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian“. The second one says that this faith only includes that “which has been believed everywhere, always and by all”. By these definitions, “Christianity” is an objective category not a “free for all”. The key words affirming this are “if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian”. These ancient definition preclude not only any form of dogmatic innovation, they also imply that words can be used either in a truly Christian sense or not. There is no middle-ground here. This belief, which was shared by all the Church Fathers and all the members of the ancient, original, Christian Church has tremendous implications, especially for what is called “ecclesiology”.

The term “ecclesiology” refers to the Christian theology concerning the Church. In other words, the teachings of Christianity about what is, or what is not, the Church (and what is, or is not, within the confines of the Church) is an objective corpus of beliefs, of key tenets, of dogmas.

What I will do next is to explain the meaning of a number of concepts when used in this second, original, context and contrast their original meaning with the basically secular and pseudo-Christian meaning which is so often attributed to them nowadays.

One more thing, for the sake of clarity: I will be writing the word church with a lower case “c” when dealing with a building (as in “the church of Saint Paul in the city’s downtown”) and with a capital “C” when dealing with an ecclesiastical jurisdiction/body (as in the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate”); in this latter case the use of the word “Church” with a capital “C” will in no way imply any recognition of legitimacy.

1. Canonical, canonicity and “recognized”

Most authors nowadays speak of a “canonical” Church as being a “recognized” Church. This is a circular definition, by the way: a Church is canonical because it is recognized and it is recognized because it is canonical. This begs the obvious question: recognized by whom?! The answer is also obvious: either recognized by the country’s civil/secular authorities or recognized by other “canonical” Churches.

From a truly Christian point of view, this is utterly absurd. Since when do civil/secular powers have the expertise or, for that matter, the authority to recognize or not recognize Church “A” as “canonical” and Church “B” as “non-canonical”?! And what does “canonical” mean anyway?

ORDER IT NOW

“Canonical” simply means “in conformity to the Church canons”. As for the word “canon” it is simply the Greek word for “ruler, measure”. Simply put, something is “canonical” when it is in conformity with the dogmas, rules, decrees, definitions and practices proclaimed and adopted by the Christian Church, primarily by means of decisions by the various recognized Church councils (I won’t go into the issue of what constitutes a recognized council since that will take too much time). You could say that something is canonical if it conforms to the the rules of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria and Saint Vincent of Lérins quoted above. This, again, is an objective category which cannot be twisted and turned into a free for all. So let’s look at one such canons and see what it says. The 31st Apostolic Canon decrees that:

If any bishop makes use of the rulers of this world, and by their means obtains to be a bishop of a church, let him be deprived and suspended, and all that communicate with him.

This ruling of the apostles themselves has later been recognized and confirmed during an Ecumenical Council. The 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council says:

“Every appointment of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon made by (civil) rulers shall remain void in accordance with the Canon which says: “If any bishop comes into possession of a church by employing secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too.”

You see the problem now? How can anybody consider that civil/secular authorities are competent to “recognize” this or that Church as “canonical” when the canons of the Apostles and of a Ecumenical Council (the most authoritative Church Council) specifically state that if a bishop has obtains his “legitimacy” (office, rank, diocese or church properties) from civil/secular authorities he should be deposed, thus making him totally illegitimate? From a canonical point of view, the recognition of civil authorities is not only meaningless, it could, depending on the exact circumstances, constitute grounds for deposition!

The reality is that during much of the 20th century what we have seen is the civil/secular authorities of various countries supporting one Church against another for purely political purposes. This was especially prevalent in the Communist countries. Some bishops were considered “friendly” and others “enemies of the people”. The secular authorities then simply used brute force (usually in the form of riot police) to evict the latter and replace them with the former. The “friendly” bishops then took control of all of the churches, monasteries and other properties and declared themselves to be legitimate and canonical because they were recognized and because they were placed in control of a lot of very visible and historical real estate.

Needless to say, that kind of dependence on the goodwill and support of civil/secular authorities placed the “friendly” Churches into a complete subordination to the state, exactly what the civil/secular authorities wanted in the first place. The fact that, unlike in most similar cases before the 20th century, the civil authorities in the 20th century were not only secular, but openly and militantly atheistic created a qualitatively new phenomenon: the subordination of bishops and Churches to the will of anti-religious secular regimes. Nowadays, of course, most governments in nominally Orthodox countries do not declare themselves as militant atheists, but the subordinate relationship of the official “state Churches” to the secular authorities has remained unchanged (even if their official rhetoric has been adapted to the new realities).

The bottom line is this: all this talk about “canonical” and “recognized” Churches is a self-serving canard used by those Churches who have obtained their official status by completely uncanonical means. In the overwhelming number of cases, when individuals or organizations use the term “canonical” they never mean “in conformity to the Church canons” simply because they are both ignorant and indifferent to what the Christian teachings really says about these matters.

2. Bishops, Patriarchs and wannabe “Eastern Popes”

Who is the biggest Ortho-boss, the bishop, or maybe the Archbishop, or the Metropolitan, or the Patriarch? It must be the “Ecumenical” Patriarch, right? Since he is “Ecumenical” he must be like an “Orthodox Pope”. Check out his official title: “His Most Divine All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch“. God is, by definition, (only) “divine”. The Third Person of the Trinity is (just) the “Holy” Spirit. But the Patriarch of Constantinople is his “most divine and all-holy”! Wow – he surely must really be some kind of super Ortho-Pope!

Wrong.

There are only four main “ranks” in the Church: faithful, deacon, presbyter and bishop. All the rest are just honorific and/or administrative titles including reader, subdeacon, chanter, acolyte, protodeacon, archdeacon, protopresbyter, archpriest, archimandrite, mitred archpriest, protosyngellos, archbishop, metropolitan and patriarch. The rank of emperor, by the way, was associated with the rank of subdeacon and the emperor would receive the Mysteries (aka “sacraments”, the Eucharist) to the side of the altar with the subdeacons. None of these titles indicate any qualitative difference or mystical superiority.

The Church, while essentially mystical (thus referred to as the “theandric Body of Christ”) also has an administrative/organizational aspect which must exist within the social and political environment of the society in which it operates. For example, while in mystical terms all bishops are equal, it was obvious from the beginning that being the bishop of the imperial city (be it Rome or Constantinople) was a far more important office than being the bishop of some remote and scarcely populated diocese. Furthermore, while all important decisions were made in councils (local or ecumenical) day to day decisions could be made by bishops specially invested with that authority (sometimes assisted by a few more bishops). But except for honorific and administrative reasons, all bishops are fundamentally equals, invested with the same charisma (gift) and authority. The Latin expression primus inter pares, or “first among equals”, expresses this reality.

This also fully applies to the “Most Divine All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch” who had a honorific primacy simply because he was the ruling bishop of the capital of the Empire, just as the ruling bishop of Rome (the “Pope” in Latin terminology) had before him. I won’t go into the history of how the (tiny) Patriarchate of Constantinople used its former position to claim some kind of universal jurisdiction, this would take too much time, but I will simply note that two events which occurred on the 15th century have irrevocably made void any and all claims of primacy (even of honor) by the Patriarch of Constantinople: the False Union of Florence in 1439 AD and the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453 AD.

The Russian Orthodox Church, by the way, could lay claim of being the “Third Rome” as successor to the First and Second Rome since the First Rome fell to the Barbarians in 476 and fell into apostasy in 1054 while the Second Rome fell into apostasy in 1439 and to the Ottomans in 1453. I won’t go into the merits of this argument, but I will just point out that it absolutely infuriates the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The fact that the Russian Orthodox Church is by far the biggest of all and the fact that Moscow and Saint Petersburg were the capitals of the last Orthodox empire only further serves to create tensions, and even outright hostility, between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate. This is all very relevant in the case of the current political struggle over the Ukraine and the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople in it.

For all these historical and political arguments, the reality is that the Christian Church has always been conciliar in nature: that is to say that councils (local or major ones) were both the mode and the sole authority by which important decisions could be taken, never any single individual. The example of the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (in about 50 AD) was the first one to set such an example and it has always been followed by those faithful to the original Christian ecclesiology ever since.

3. The “right” for each country or nation to have its own Church

This is one of the most outlandish and yet also most frequent assertions made by almost every commentator out there: that there is some kind of “right” for each nation or country to have its own, independent, Church. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The reality is that Christianity (like Islam, by the way) absolutely rejects any categories based on ethnicity, race, tribe or anything similar. Here are just a few quotes from the New Testament proving this:

  • There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28)
  • For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit (Gal 5:6)
  • Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God (1 Cor 7:19)
  • For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit (1 Cor; 12 :13)

But the clearest and most definitive statement on this issue is this one:

  • Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all (Col 3:9-11).

So national/racial/ethnic/tribal categories are lies (contrast that with the racist interpretation of the Scripture by rabbinical phariseism aka modern “Orthodox Judaism”!), becoming a Christian renews your knowledge (that is make you adopt new categories) and in Christ all are one (no more national/racial/ethnic/tribal for true Christians).

This teaching have always remained at the core of the true Christian dogmatic anthropology (i.e. teachings about the nature of man). In fact, what is nowadays called “phyletism” or “ethno-phyletism” (nationalism or tribalism) has been condemned as a heresy by a pan-Orthodox council as late as in 1872 (this council was held in Constantinople, of all places, what sad irony!) For those interested in the historical context for this council, you can download a PDF about it here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/The-Synod-of-Constantinople-1872-The-Oecumenical-Synods-of-the-Orthodox-Church-Fr-James-Thornton.pdf.

It is ironical – and sad – that so many of those who today engage in “hunting the Jew” by means of putting silly parentheses around (((names))) and who call themselves Orthodox Christians completely fail to realize two thing: first, they are using categories which the Church has denounced as heresies and, second, they are using the exact same categories as many of the (Orthodox) Jews they are denouncing. Frankly, this is rather pathetic and only goes to show the fantastically low level of spiritual education of those who fancy themselves as “defenders of the Christian faith” and who, in reality, have not even the vaguest basic notions about the faith they pretend to defend.

The truth is that modern national/racial/ethnic/tribal categories are just re-hated pagan categories and that those who use them today, including priests and bishops, are simply catering to the pagan, post-Christian Zeitgeist for petty political reasons. Furthermore, it is also true that since the fall of the last Orthodox Empire in 1917, the Orthodox Church has been undergoing an immense crisis brought along primarily by the infiltration of Greek Orthodox Churches by Freemasons (see here for some background information) and the infiltration of the Russian Orthodox Church by agents of the Bolshevik regime in Russia (see here and here for some background information). The combined effects of these three phenomena (1917 Revolution, Masonic and Bolshevik infiltration) has resulted in a deep crisis from which most Orthodox Churches have yet to recover and which often makes them easy pawns in political battles (I discussed this issue in some detail in my article “Why Orthodox Churches Are Still Used as Pawns in Political Games”).

As for rank and file Orthodox Christians, they are sometimes induced to come to the wrong conclusions about this because they believe (correctly) that, unlike the Latin Papacy, the Orthodox Church does not have one single super-boss and one single administration. They also believe (correctly) that, unlike the Latin Papacy of the past, the Orthodox Church did not have a single “official” language of worship and that, in fact, Orthodox ritual practice is rather diverse and often includes local cultural influences. These correct beliefs, however, bring them to the entirely false conclusion that each Orthodox nation has some kind of “right” to have its own independent (“autocephalous”) Orthodox Church.

The fact that much of the clergy of the “official” and “recognized” (that is “state approved” vide supra) Orthodox Churches is more than happy to comfort them in these beliefs does not help.

As for the secular leaders of the state, they are more than happy to have an Orthodox Church which is both 1) totally compliant and 2) nationalistic.

What is lost in all this madness is the Orthodox truth, the wordview of the true, original, Christianity, and the “spirit of the Fathers” (or phronema in Greek) which best expresses it. It is also no wonder that the most corrupt Orthodox hierarchs, like the Patriarch of Constantinople, are more than happy to pretend that Orthodox ecclesiology does somehow grant them the authority of some kind of “Eastern Pope”.

This is truly the “abomination of desolation standing in the holy place” (Matt 24:15 & Daniel 9:27)!

ORDER IT NOW

Those Orthodox Christians who nowadays succumb to the heresy of ethno-phyletism would do well to remember that besides the, shall we say, “geographical” meaning of the words of Christ (in reference to Jerusalem, of course, but also Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, Kiev and many other cities), there is also a second, spiritual meaning well explained by Saint Maximos the Confessor:

“From the passions embedded in the soul the demons take their starting base to stir up passionate thought in us. Then, by making war on the mind through them they force it to go along and consent to sin. When it is overcome they lead it on to a sin of thought, and when this is accomplished they finally bring it as a prisoner to the deed. After this, at length, the demons who have devastated the soul through thoughts withdraw with them. In the mind there remains only the idol of sin and which the Lord says, “When you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, let him who reads understand.” Man’s mind is a holy place and a temple of God in which the demons have laid waste the soul through passionate thoughts and set up the idol of sin. That these things have already happened in history no one who has read Josephus can, I think, doubt, though some say that these things will also happen when the Antichrist comes.”(2nd Century on Love, #31).

Here we have arguably one of the greatest Christian theologians and philosophers of all times reminding us that the “abomination of desolation” will also happen in the minds of those who, suaded by demons and passions, stray away from that “which has been believed everywhere, always and by all” and, instead, let their minds and souls be polluted by the post-Christian nonsense of modern nationalisms. Nationalism, of course, is not only an modern idol, but it is also a rather crude form of self-worship, yet another truly satanic practice!

Conclusion: what this is all about and we can can do about it

The first sad reality is that none of this is about Christianity, Orthodoxy, ecclesiology or anything else remotely connected to any notion of truth at all.

This is about buildings, real-estate, political power, money, influence, indoctrination and all the other key “values” of our times.

The second sad reality is that innocent and well-intentioned people will suffer and even die as a direct consequence of the immoral actions of a few power-greedy individuals.

The truth is that a religion-fulled civil war appears to have already been set in motion and that there is nothing we, simple rank and file Christians, can do about it, at least not in secular terms. In spiritual terms, we can do two things: we can, of course, pray and we can refuse to become part of a debate in which every single concept dear to us is misused, distorted and perverted. For that, we need to understand that the abomination which is taking place before our eyes did not just pop-up into existence ex nihilo and that there are profound spiritual roots to the almost universal adoption of non-Christian categories by most, albeit not all, Christians. Christ Himself reminded us that “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (John 15:9). We also know that the wisdom of this world is “foolishness with God” (1 Cor 3:19) and that it comes “not come from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic” (James 3:15). Then how can we then still operate by using worldly categories or worldly interpretations of patristic concepts?

What we can, and must, do is follow Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s famous appeal and “live not by lies” even if most of our contemporaries, including many Christians (even clerics!) have given up on the very notion of “truth”. In Solzhenitsyn’s words “So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood — of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies — or to shrug off the lies and become an honest person worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries”.

After all, if we are truly Christians, then we can remember Christ’s promise that “blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled” (Matt 5:6) and, hopefully, this will give us courage to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess 2:15).

 
Hide 114 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28)

    That is one of the verses used by the Church of England to justify Third World immigration and Islamization. Paragraph 2 of the church’s theological statement, Affirming Our Common Humanity, reads:

    ‘According to Scripture the existence of the different nations of the world is part of God’s providential ordering of human history and the nations will enjoy and contribute the riches of their diversities to the life of God’s eternal kingdom. However, this biblical teaching does not support the idea that any nation is superior to any other, or a notion of separate development involving the segregation of people belonging to different tribes, nations or religions [my emphasis].’

    The church sought, over ten years ago, to silence opposition to its creed of race and faith replacement by inventing the sin of racism (§15).

    Through their support of mass immigration and Islamization, all Western denominations have betrayed their indigenous peoples. I had thought of the Eastern churches as strong defenders of their nations but your statement that ‘national/racial/ethnic/tribal categories are lies’ shows that the Eastern churches are just as evil as their Western counterparts. Christianity is truly a suicide cult.

    Affirming Our Common Humanity downloads here.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @lulu
    , @FrJohn
  2. AP says:

    “If any bishop comes into possession of a church by employing secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too.”

    Kiev changed from Constantinople to Moscow due to pressure placed upon Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks as a result of a treaty between Russian and the Ottoman Empire. This was after Ottoman defeats had rendered the Ottomans desperate for good relations with Russia, at a time when both the Ottoman Empire and Russia were in a state of war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

    So Moscow came into possession of Ukraine’s Church by using infidel rulers who were persecuting and enslaving Orthodox on their own lands.

    Those Orthodox Christians who nowadays succumb to the heresy of ethno-phyletism

    Russian Church is not involved with this heresy? :-)

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    , @Anon
  3. Micaiah says:

    I like your conclusion. You are spot on.

    The first sad reality is that none of this is about Christianity, Orthodoxy, ecclesiology or anything else remotely connected to any notion of truth at all.

    This is about buildings, real-estate, political power, money, influence, indoctrination and all the other key “values” of our times.

    Jesus said that there would be wheat and weeds in the kingdom until harvest. It is not our place to attempt to pull weeds. We may, however, inspect fruit. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. The sheep of His pasture are those who are producing these fruits, not squabbling over stuff, or power, or notoriety.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @bj
  4. c matt says:

    and in Christ all are one

    Of course, “in Christ” is the key. As human beings we carry the imago Dei, just as baptized Christians we are united in Christ and carry a certain imago Christi (some better than others). But that does not mean there are no such things a Greeks or Jews, and that as Greeks or Jews you may have different interest and objectives for your respective tribes. It is very similar to the misapplication of “all men are created equal” when obviously, some are taller, faster, better looking, stronger, smarter, harder working, etc. Being equal, in that you have a certain imago Dei by the fact you are human, does not mean having equal outcomes throughout life.

    • Replies: @anon
  5. barry says:

    Quote: “The latest move by the Anglo-Zionist Empire in the Ukraine is truly an exceptionally ugly and dangerous one”. The Church, every Church, including ROC have rubbed its shoulders with the secular rulers all the time. Historically, whatever processes steered changes and “church reforms” they were always result and consequence of the political processes. So again, the current predicament of the ROC is simply result of the political developments in the Eastern Europe and particularly on the territory of the former USSR after its demise. It would be impossible and unthinkable for these processes to have taken place without the true political enablers: Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin and their forced implementation of the pro-western, liberal and antinational policies in the last 30 years. It is pointless to blame “Anglo-Zionist Empire” since it is not doing anything new.

    • Replies: @in the middle
  6. @Johnny Rottenborough

    This discussion reminds me why I hold close to scripture as opposed to commentary which is helpful, but hardly as hearty as scripture itself in understanding faith and practice.

    • Replies: @lulu
  7. @barry

    The real question is ‘where have all the Christians gone”. Christians are outside of churchianity. Churchianity is the most corrupt, warmonger and to some extent, racist. I know, I belonged to one of them, churchianity. I left when the ‘pastor’ defended and told the sheep, that Israhell was right by attacking the Palestinians, and that Talmudists were the people of ‘god’.
    It took me twenty years in churchianity to wake up! It also took me many years to leave the satanic MSM. Both are the pillars where evil rests. The answer to the question where have all the Christians gone? They left churchianity! They are fallowing the command: ‘come out of her my people…”

    Rev. 18:4

    • Replies: @anon
  8. I agree strongly with you, Saker, in that I’m really getting tired of the knee-jerk anti-semitism online (assuming it’s real and not being propagated by hasbara trolls.) I’ve known a lot of good Jewish folks in my day including my personal hero Murray Rothbard. But I also really respect you for having the courage to denounce the Anglo-Zionist conspirators for the threat they are. I call these people Judeo-Supremacists. All groups have their racist members but Jews are the only group we are absolutely forbidden to criticize for any reason.

    • Replies: @Boxwood tree
  9. Giuseppe says:

    The latest move by the Anglo-Zionist Empire in the Ukraine is truly an exceptionally ugly and dangerous one: it appears that the Patriarch of Constantinople will soon grant its full independence to the so-called “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate”.

    Several other possible interpretations do not necessarily involve Imperial machinations:

    1. The Patriarch feels compelled to rip apart the Orthodox Church due to personal mental health issues.

    2. The Patriarch wants to reach beyond his microscopic ecclesiastical base in Constantinople and make a big splash on the world stage by grandstanding in the Ukraine.

    3. The Patriarch, friend of the papacy, wants to take in the non-canonical Ukrainian Orthodox as an eventual segue to Orthodox-Catholic unity; Ukraine is a country with a long history of co-existing Russian Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches that are very much alike in their liturgies and other observances.

    • Replies: @Miggle
  10. anon[499] • Disclaimer says:
    @c matt

    For millennia, in Christendom, nobles were born to rule and peasants were born to serve and obey, and Church saw it as right and proper. The Church never taught that “all people are equal”.

    • Replies: @Anon
  11. lulu says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Well said and thought!

    There is a Chinese proverb: the scripture is good, but the distorted mouth ruins it.

  12. lulu says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    So national/racial/ethnic/tribal categories are lies (contrast that with the racist interpretation of the Scripture by rabbinical phariseism aka modern “Orthodox Judaism”!), becoming a Christian renews your knowledge (that is make you adopt new categories) and in Christ all are one (no more national/racial/ethnic/tribal for true Christians).

    This teaching have always remained at the core of the true Christian dogmatic anthropology (i.e. teachings about the nature of man). In fact, what is nowadays called “phyletism” or “ethno-phyletism” (nationalism or tribalism) has been condemned as a heresy by a pan-Orthodox council as late as in 1872

    If this is the true interpretation of Christianity, then you (Western Christian countries) should NOT complain about the loss of sovereignty, disapperance of national identity and the mass immigration, because Christianity laid the foundation for transnational unification aka universal/world belief and government.

    What you get now is what you have sowed since thousands of years when you had adopted Christianity.

  13. Giuseppe says:
    @lulu

    Christianity could be thought of as global, but not in the way you think. The unity is spiritual and eternal, not material and temporal, and won’t be fully realized until the eschaton, the consummation of all things when the kingdoms of this world are overwhelmed by the Kingdom of God. You are confusing the City of Man with the City of God.

    If your contention is correct, we would expect that the ideal in Christianity is for a single global identity speaking one language. But at the end of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, we find a great multitude in Heaven composed of every nation and tongue. So how can Christianity be both behind globalism and also revealing that at the consummation of all things there are all of these different nationalities and languages?

    Because it’s not, not true Christianity, although undoubtedly secularized Christianish ideas are being used to promote globalism. Globalist unity is fake unity, attempting to approximate through laws and social convention what the Church accomplishes spiritually through unity in Christ. The primary moving force behind globalism is the spirit of anti-Christ as men build the modern world state like they built the Tower of Babel, a single global nation speaking a single language united to accomplish terrible things. The first step toward globalism has been to wage unholy war to unleash upon the nations a wave of refugees. This is not Christianity, it is satanic and it is the work of men, not of God. It is a variation on the old Imperial theme of divide et impera. Phase One is divide by waging war in the ME, unleashing refugee survivors and by large scale immigration as cheap corporate labor all in order to break up the old national unities. Phase Two is rule the world. The Church shows us that these refugees and immigrants are not the problem and should not be the focus of animosity, rather, the real problem lies with the policy makers of the corporatocracy, who unfortunately are beyond the reach of your rage. Immigrants and refugees, sadly, are closer at hand.

    If you want to get a sense of what is happening around you today from the Christian perspective read the works of C.S. Lewis, particularly the Last Battle and That Hideous Strength, the source for the Tower of Babel metaphor.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  14. And yet, the Russian Orthodox Church is itself a schismatic national church formed by a unilateral breakaway from Constaninople for entirely similar reasons to Henry VIII’s breakaway from Rome – money, nationalist fear about the Pope/Patriach being controlled by a foreign power. For centuries, until the Bolsheviks took it over, Russian Orthodoxy was in constant discussion with the Church of England about some form of union even as late as 1922. Until then, it was clear that both recognized each other’s bishops. Now the ROC has gone hazy on the subject. For a Russian Orthodox to protest against a national church is hypocrisy.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  15. @lulu

    lulu—If this is the true interpretation of Christianity

    Through its support for mass immigration and Islamization, today’s Christianity manages to be both anti-white and anti-Christian—that’s to say, racist and suicidal. I hope that is not the true Christianity. My preferred Christianity would pay heed to 1 Timothy 5:8, ‘But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.’

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  16. Dear Saker,

    You are incorrect in your assertion that “In fact, what is nowadays called ‘phyletism’ or ‘ethno-phyletism’ (nationalism or tribalism) has been condemned as a heresy by a pan-Orthodox council as late as in 1872.” Take a look at the very section from Father James Thornton’s writing that you link to: He writes,

    “It must be noted that there is some misunderstanding today regarding phyletism, some observers incorrectly assuming that the Synod of 1872 condemned the idea of patriotism, that is, love of one’s country or people. It did not. Thus, the activities of the two most influential figures in the awakening of modern Bulgarian national consciousness—Saint Paisios of Hilandar, who sought to engender in his people “the spirit of patriotism and healthy national pride…, a love for the Bulgarian language and nation,”78 and Saint Sophronios of Vratsa, who ‘taught in the Bulgarian language and insisted on the necessity of opening national schools in which the Bulgarian language 74 Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 91. 75 ‘Status of Patriarch Rejected,’ The Sentinel, Vol. xii, No. 8 (August 2007), p. 1. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Maloney, A History of Orthodox Theology Since 1453, p. 230.
    156 The Œcumenical Synods of the Orthodox Church and culture could be taught”79—cannot be described as phyletistic. Rather, phyletism is the intrusion of chauvinism, even jingoism, in the administration or spiritual life of the Church within a given locale, when nationalistic pride trumps catholic humility and the Faithful, inappropriately, divide into ethnic ecclesiastical cliques.”

    By writing what you write, conflating the Church’s condemnation ethnic and racial discrimination within the Church with the condemning the obvious existence of nations and racial groups, and people’s loyalty to them, you both write incorrectly, and, worse, create a stumbling block for Whites and various European nationalities into accepting Orthodoxy, Christ. What a shame.

    Sincerely,

    Edward Dorsey (pseudonymn of an Orthodox Christian layman in the U.S.)

  17. Outstanding essay by The Saker, and much appreciated, but, as a member of the ROCOR in North America during the past 25 years, I must ask whether the Moscow Patriarchate, itself, has not been anathematized by the Church’s understanding of corruption by the secular (Soviet) state, in the same way that the Ecumenical Patriarchate was corrupted by the Porte.

  18. If you read through Byzantine history, you find that the church was weaponised along national or tribal boundaries, e.g. the Bulgarian kingdom & its corresponding flavour of the Orthodox was designed to build its ties to the Empire rather than Rome as the kingdom Christianised. In fact, the cyrillic alphabet was evolved at the behest of the Byzantine Empire to help spread the Orthodox word in eastern Europe (first Moravia, later Bulgaria) to cement the eastern Orthodox there in an attempt to beat Rome to the scene.

    What you are witnessing with the church in Ukraine is venal, but it is not unprecedented.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  19. wayfarer says:

    A spiritual monkey wrench, for religious fundamentalism.

    Well intended, to help open the stubbornly closed human mind.

    “Teachings of Padmasambhava” (https://bit.ly/2NRJFPJ) by Herbert Guenther.

  20. Anonymous[364] • Disclaimer says:

    All believers in Jewsus are equal, but some are more equal than others.

    THE JEW FIRST.” Romans 1:16

    First in line to receive shekels, Gentile! lol

    “For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they OWE IT TO THE JEWS to share with them their material blessings.” Romans 15:27

    Did you ever stop to think that no white man ever needed “saved?” Jew Testament is wrong; Gentiles owe Jews nothing.

    WE WORSHIP what we do know, for salvation is from THE JEWS.” John 4:22

    Salvation is a hoax narrative for midwits. Get off your knees.

  21. Roberto says:

    On that note, expect a doubling down on the deals and the bribes. But hey, the entertainment is free!

  22. Anonymous[165] • Disclaimer says:
    @Micaiah

    The sheep of Jewsus’ pasture? You have said it yourself. Submissive sheep are for sheering, you know. They have masters that need to make profits. Better to be a wolf. A wolf is submissive to no Jewish master.

    “The closest approximation to human morality we can find in nature is that of the gray wolf, Canis lupus.”

    W. M. Schleidt, M. D. Shalter, 2003, Co-evolution of Humans and Canids: An Alternative View of Dog Domestication: Homo Homini Lupus, Evolution and Cognition, vol. 9, No. 1, pages 57-72

    Go on, Jew-worshipers, quote Jewsus’ mewlings in the Jew Testament about sending his submissive slave-sheep out to wolves. That part where Jewsus again hates on those awful “wolf” Gentiles.

    Christianity is self-hatred of your Whiteness.

    “Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against ‘race:’ the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

    • Troll: Miggle
  23. ” The reality is that during much of the 20th century what we have seen is the civil/secular authorities of various countries supporting one Church against another for purely political purposes.

    I’d have written: since the third century or so, until Henry VIII, not that is was over by then, created the Anglican church, the pope supported or supported not secular powers for purely church political reasons.
    The pope’s secular might in fact just ended with the unification of Italy, the papal territories were right in the middle of present Italy, from the Med to the Adriatic.
    About the same time three emperors in Europe still were of the opinion that they ruled in the name of god.
    The Russian revolution, not the coup of Lenin at the end of 1917, at the beginning of 1917, and the allied WWII victory was the end of god given rule.
    Nevertheless, Putin, a very wise man, took care to get the support of the Russian orthodox church.
    ‘truly christians’, just finished a book of medieval castles and fortifications, though I knew these things, yet amazed how many bishops and cardinals were not bad in warfare and fortification building.
    Thou shallt not kill, if any commandment was (and is) neglected by christians, it is this commandment.
    The persecutions of the jews especially by the catholic church are explained by quite a few historians by that the very existance of jews made it clear that the pope’s might was not absolute.
    At the same time, rulers liked to employ jews, often for financial purposes, they were not under the pope’s jurisdiction.

  24. anon[317] • Disclaimer says:
    @in the middle

    @ barry agree and @ in the middle maybe the Christians have retreated to their minds? ,

    Ii entered college to study the history of the church and to become a minister of my faith..
    during my first semester 1) the long time respected minister of my hometown church took off, left his own wife and family of three kids, with a married women from the same congregation., who also abandoned her family.; it was discovered large sums missing 2. the bastard that ministered the church in the university town where I was in school, gave sermon after sermon converting Christianity to Zionism; though at the time I did not understand Zionism.

    By the end of that Semester I leaned that relationships with God are personal, instinctively moral, personal interactions of self with god. The external environment became nearly irrelevant; something worldly to deal with, but not something that could add value to eternity.

    As has been said: “The problem with man’s religion is the church” the problem with man’s politics is the church. The problem with the church is that it it too busy integrating the church with politics to serve God. .

    very good article, confusing, deep and interesting.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  25. Anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:
    @lulu

    Exactly. Christianity = Globalism.

    L’Internationale Jewsus confirms:

    • John 3:16-17 For Jewgod so loved the universe [kosmos] … that the universe [kosmos] through him might be saved.
    • Go therefore and make disciples of all nations. Matthew 28:19
    • Proclaimed in his name to all nations. Luke 24:47

    Chrisitanity was the Jews’ original EU project, concocted to destroy European nationalist identity associated with local/regional gods, which the Roman Empire united, but still preserved identity in the Pantheon. Jewpaul made Jewsus into the unknown L’Internationale Jewgod. It’s right in the Jew Testament.

  26. @Philip Owen

    For a Russian Orthodox to protest against a national church is hypocrisy.

    The issue is the heretic and schismatic nature of the so-called “Kiev partriarchate”, and, in particular, the character and history of Denisenko, the self-styled “Kiev partriarch”. A national church is not an issue per se; in fact, Ukraine’s Orthodox Church is already independent is everything but name.

    A Ukrainian autocephaly would have happened regardless, if Denisenko didn’t try to force his hand with illegal and disgusting acts.

    • Replies: @Quartermaster
  27. Anonymous[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    Venal?

    Venal comes from L. venari, to hunt.

    Venari
    translation: To hunt, chase

    http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:venari

    Venal is associated with the words of things masculine men like to hunt. Venison and Venus, i.e., food and sex.

    Some people, like feminists, faggots, and associated socialist trash think the masculine behavior embodied in the word venal is a bad.

    Most people within the broad orbit of the Democratic Party are assuming that anger at President Donald Trump and his dysfunctional, venal presidency will give the Dems a boost at the polls come November.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venal

    Merriam Webster’s right on track with the Cathedral’s narrative: masculine men made for the hunt are bad. Nothing has changed for 2000 years, with Jewsus wanting men to castrate their own balls. (Matthew 19:11-12)

    • Replies: @Druid
  28. Ahoy says:

    Τhere is no true Christianity on earth as long as the Old Testament is carried along with the New. A perfect Jewish trap for the unsuspecting Christians.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Druid
  29. Anonymous[100] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ahoy

    LOL The New Testament quotes the Old Testament too much. They’re joined at the hip. Throw the whole damn thing out. Who needs “true Christianity” anyway? The New Testament writers included approximately 250 express Old Testament quotations, and if one includes indirect or partial quotations, the number jumps to more than 1,000. Examples:

    Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation

    http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

    The fictional Jesus character is just a re-run. I say re-run, because the Bible is just an earlier non-electronic version of Talmud-Vision, the Jewish dominated media. A couple examples follow:

    ORIGINAL: Hosea 11:1 and out of Egypt have I called his children.
    RE-RUN: Matthew 2:15 Out of Egypt have I called my son.

    ORIGINAL: Jeremiah 38:15 A voice was heard in Rama, of lamentation, and of weeping, and wailing; Rachel would not cease weeping for her children, because they are not.
    RE-RUN: Matthew 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted because they are not.

    Jew Testament. TV. Turn ‘em off.

  30. This is silly! How Ukrainians organize religion in their country is a matter for them.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anon
    , @Epigon
  31. Giuseppe says:

    The Patriarch has drawn a lot of attention to himself on the geopolitical stage recently thereby making himself a target for imperial skripalization. They are already talking about poisoning attempts in the Ukrainian media.

  32. Mr. Hack says:

    Why doesn’t Saker just fess up and admit that the Kremlin’s and his own biasis against an independent Ukrainian church are just a continuing part of a long saga directed against an independent Ukraine. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew stands on solid ecclesiastical ground when he grants the tomos to Ukraine. He’s correcting a wrong committed by the Moscow church in usurping the rights and privileges of the Ukrainian church stolen away centuries earlier.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    , @Anon
  33. Anonymous[313] • Disclaimer says:
    @Giuseppe

    Are you stupid enough to think everybody speaking a single language is necessary to the definition of globalism? LOL What you’re doing is narrowing the definition of globalism to the ridiculous, in a dishonest attempt to defend Christianity.

    Globalist Soros is glad to see many languages spoken in the US.

    • Replies: @Giuseppe
  34. Anonymous[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @Michael Kenny

    Christians have missionary zeal, like all True Believers (Hoffer, 1951). What’s your business is their business. Christianity is the original SJW mass movement.

    To spread and re-enforce their Doctrine, mass movements use persuasion, coercion, and proselytization. Persuasion is preferable, but practical only with those already sympathetic to the mass movement.

    wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

  35. The Russian Orthodox Church, by the way, could lay claim of being the “Third Rome” as successor to the First and Second Rome since the First Rome fell to the Barbarians in 476 and fell into apostasy in 1054

    Alright Saker, this, more than any of your other strange statements over the years, has convinced me that you have been, and remain, far off the beam when it comes to solidity and prudence, however much truth there is in your critiques of Western imperialism. It is you and your coreligionists who apostatized in 1054, as anybody with a smidgen of ecclesiastical or theological knowledge can plainly see.

    Sts. Peter and Paul went to Rome and were martyred there, both very much against their own will but by the will of God. The conclusion of St. John’s Gospel is too well known to need extensive commentary: But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. This is the same St. Peter to whom the keys of the Kingdom were entrusted, the same rock upon whom Christ founded His Church. And St. Paul was bounced all over the world, imprisoned, beaten, shipwrecked, and numberless times in danger of death, before concluding his earthly career, by divine dispensation, in the same Rome that was to be the capitol of the One , Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

    There can be no doubt that the papacy was an institution established by Christ, and the conciliarism which you uphold as the sole vehicle of the Church’s administrative authority is actually a condemned heresy. Simple common sense would dictate that, when final and unambiguous decisions are necessary, they must be made by a single head, that this head must be a real and visible man and not a spirit of consensus, and that his authority must derive from his office and its traditional prerogatives, which must themselves descend from a Holy source. Only the papacy can fulfill these requirements, and the Bishop of Rome is the final authority of all who are baptized into Christ.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Giuseppe
    , @ploni almoni
  36. Anonymous[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    Today’s Christianity manages to be both anti-white, and so did yesterday’s. Look in the Jew Testament how many times Jewsus railed against White European (Roman) society. Jewsus hated White Gentiles, especially their White Patriarchal society. An example is in Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, and Luke 22:25.

    • Replies: @Anon
  37. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Not equal in secular matters but equal in the eyes of Christ. That means everyone should be baptized observe church laws and go to church.

    Everyone king or beggar has an equal chance to go to heaven which is the whole point of human existence.

    So in religious terms, everyone’s equal

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  38. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    1054 was the year the eastern Christians split from the papacy

    The easterners think the Roman Catholics were the apostates and heretics. Doesn’t make it true.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  39. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Michael Kenny

    I think Sakers point is that powerful outside forces are interfering in how the church is managed.

  40. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    You’ve told us a million times before. At least this article is about religion instead of totally secular matters.

    • Replies: @Anon
  41. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Relationships with God are personal, perhaps, but Jewhovah still advises against them.

    “But as for you who forsake Jewhovah and forget my holy mountain, who spread a table for God. (Isaiah 65:11)

    You can’t worship Jewhovah and God simultaneously, if the Bible is correct. God, Gad, Gawd, Gott, Godin, Woden, Gotin, Wotan, Odin, are all synonyms of the same deity Jewhovah hates. Dishonest translators conflated God with Jewhovah.

    I bet you didn’t learn that in college. :)

    • Agree: Druid
  42. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    So you’re admitting a precedent for universal equality, then complaining about its application. That seems rather dishonest. Especially in light of Jew Testament Communism, which sought equality in secular matters.

    • “Not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them…and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” Acts 4:32-35

    As Ludwig von Mises put it, “primitive Christianity is Bolshevism.” (Socialism, p. 413)

    What else would one expect from a Jew-worshiping religion?

  43. Anon[331] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Yours might be a valid point if everybody else wasn’t repeating themselves.

    Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

    Surprise!

    Although fanatical Jew-worshipers being Bible-thumped with their own Jew Testament should be considered a bit of a novelty. Are you not entertained?

  44. Thim says:

    More bird shit from a modern liberal. Now he is pretending to be a theologian.

  45. Ahoy says:

    @ Michael Kenny

    Agree. Tell that to the Rabis, who tell to Soros, who tells to Netaniahu, who tells the Ukranian Nazis.

    Soros doctrine rests on extreme consumer propaganda and extreme sexism, very effective tools in converting the brain to gelo. Under his grip America has veered too far away from the path the founding fathers had described.

    We are going fast in getting the status of a third world country. A goal they are seeking for the whole globe so the Zio can be the only master and the goyim his slaves.

    The other day in St. Louis, where General Flynn was to receive an award, he lent his voice to the Patrck Henry cry -Give me Liberty or Give me Death-

    He needs company, if America is going to survive as a free country.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  46. Agent76 says:

    This is Church

    A provocative video highlighting the often neglected concept of Christian discipleship and evangelism.

    Scribes and Pharisees – Hypocrites Matthew – Chapter 23 – part 2 – vs. 23 & 24

    23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  47. Epigon says:
    @Mr. Hack

    No, he doesn’t. He will go directly against canon and interfere in eparchies of another Patriarch.

    That is the reason Autocephalus Orthodox Churches will not support him.

    I personally don’t give a damn, Ecumenical Patriarch as well as Greeks in general have been a cancer for Orthodoxy since Ottomans conquered them. Fifth column, Phanariots and all that. After Anglos got involved in Greece, they switched masters. A nation that replaces one Anglo stooge with another, culminating with Soros tard Tsipras deserves contempt.

    Greek clergy sabotaged Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch Patriarchates.

    Why are you as a Papal subservient of Ukrainian “Greek” “Catholic” (neither in reality) worried about affairs of Orthodox people?

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  48. Epigon says:
    @Michael Kenny

    Except it’s not. Avoid writing on topics you have no knowledge and understanding of.

  49. Anonymous[754] • Disclaimer says:
    @Agent76

    So you’re saying Jewsus pioneered Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals against his fellow Jewish Rabbis.

    But what sane White man actually cares about Jewish religious infighting?

  50. Giuseppe says:
    @Anonymous

    Full-blown globalism will ultimately manifest as a unity; the particularity is just a means to an end.

  51. Anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ahoy

    “The Zio can be the only master and the goyim his slaves” was exactly the plan of Jewsus.

    • “You are Jewgod’s slaves.” Romans 6:22
    • “You are now a slave of Jewchrist.” 1 Corinthians 7:22
    • “Slaves of Jewchrist.” Ephesians 6:6

    And all slave-bitches get are crumbs from the Jew-Master’s table.

    • “Even the goyim bitch-dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their Jew-master’s table.” (Matthew 15:27, Mark 7:28, Luke 16:21)

    What self-respecting White man would ever submit to an arrogant Jew who spoke like that?

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @Anonymous
  52. Druid says:
    @Ahoy

    That and the truly inexplicable trinity

  53. There is much in common between Christianity and Communism. Saker due to his background fails to see it. What a pity.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Seraphim
  54. Any man of reasonable intelligence easily recognizes that the immigration he is witnessing is forced, and occurring for an others selfish, maybe evil reasons. This man also Christian, and as such is familiar with the teaching, “we are of one body (1 Cor; 12:13)”. How does this man square the teaching with current reality, and protect his life, family, job, culture, morals etc.?
    If all were operating under the same credos, then all may remain well. Alas, this is not how it is. My advice to the intelligent Christian is to get a gun, and get now.

  55. bj says:
    @Micaiah

    You read half of scripture. It is our place to wait for the harvest. Then, it for us to separate the tares and burn them. Do you have the strength to be a reaper?

    30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

    Matthew 13:30 KJV

  56. Miggle says:
    @Giuseppe

    3. The Patriarch, friend of the papacy, wants to take in the non-canonical Ukrainian Orthodox as an eventual segue to Orthodox-Catholic unity; Ukraine is a country with a long history of co-existing Russian Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches that are very much alike in their liturgies and other observances.

    Do they both agree that the Pope of Rome is one of the Apostles, that what he does is Apostolic? Do that both agree that the Pope of Rome is the, the, Vicar of Christ? Do they both agree that God has abdicated in favor of a priesthood that has the power to forgive sin in His place?

  57. anarchyst says:

    The beginning of the end of traditional Catholicism was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church Vatican II Ecumenical Council of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants who were involved in the “modernization” of the Catholic Church.
    Much Catholic ritual and doctrine was discarded or changed, in order to reflect the “age” that we live in, as well as the promotion of the absolution of the Jews for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and death, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Jesus Christ and Christianity which exists to this day. The fact is, the Jews DID get the Romans to crucify Jesus Christ and DID accept full responsibility for the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. As is the case today, they got others (Pontius Pilate) to do their “dirty work” for them…
    Abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its universality. Previous to Vatican II, one could attend Mass anywhere in the Roman Catholic world and understand the meaning of the Mass.
    Prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (except by special ecclesiastical permission) pushed many Catholics away from the new Modern Mass and the New Church, in general. It took a brave Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X to push back against Vatican II and re-legitimize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass and other Catholic rites.
    In pre-Vatican II times, the priest (celebrant of the Mass) was considered to be a part of the congregation, and a representative of the people.
    By turning the priest around to face the congregation, the priest was no longer a representative, but an actor, diminishing his status and importance.
    One area where the Catholic Church could improve itself involves celibacy, which is NOT Church dogma or doctrine. Celibacy was put in place during the middle ages in order to keep Church property from being inherited by family and relatives of priests and bishops. Celibacy was based on purely financial considerationsnothing more. It is interesting to note that Episcopal (Anglican) priests who convert to Catholicism can bring their families with them to the Church while Roman Catholic priests are denied marriage.
    It was a grave mistake by the Church to de-legitimize pre-Vatican II principles.
    Fortunately, there are Catholic organizations that subscribe to pre-Vatican II principles, one being the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  58. Anon[185] • Disclaimer says:

    ON TARGET: Canada’s Warmongering In Ukraine Is Dangerous

    ON TARGET: CANADA: Peacekeeper To Warmonger

    ON TARGET: Celebrating Nazis Is Wrong. Period.

    ON TARGET: Nazi Connections: Minister Freeland Deflects and Latvia Openly Celebrates

    Frenetic Freeland

    ”Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland suddenly waxes eloquent about how “energetically” her staff is … Freeland emphasized, “We are absolutely committed to the defence of human rights and we condemn all … serious citizenry ass with some fine, grade A Canadian made and approved equipment. So cue the Freeland … Frenetic Freeland …”

    http://espritdecorps.ca

  59. Che Guava says:

    From my reading ‘constant discussion’ is an overstatement.1922, well it continued after that, too, although I would be interested in reading on the formal connections of that year.

    To draw parallels between Orthodoxy in Russia relative to the oecumenial patriarch and the CoE relative to the bishop of Rome is to draw many false ones, and do not think that I need to spell them out, too obvious.

    The churches of east and west recognise the validity of each other’s sacraments, this was also extended to the Anglicans/
    Episcopaleans, at least for baptism, marriage, priestly ordination, communion.

    It is hard to see how that can continue with the Anglicans, since they are ordaining largely lesbian women as priests and bishops, one looks at their vapid faces, they are clearly in love with posing in the vestments, and not much else. They are clearly well into the realms of heresy.

    For east and west, in geopolitical terms, the Fatima prophecies, their current interpretations. and continuing efforts of Rome to recruit eastern orthodox churches to bend the knee to the pope are simply that, geopolitical, and do not help. As JPII did not, despite much good writing, temporally, he was a Cold Warrior more than anything.

    The many confections of the nineteenth century Roman church, from papal infallability ex cathedra to the various institutionalizations of what are, in some cases, older folk beliefs about Mary, the Immaculate Heart, Queen of Heaven, Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, also do not help. Admittedly, I am not at all troubled by depictions of the Immaculate Heart, nice symbol, but the rest of it …

    Recent revelations that many branches of the church of Rome (parts of the Americas, some in parts of Europe, Germany and the Vatican in particular) are full of active male homosexuals, who, like their male and female counterparts in the Anglican church, just get a thrill from camping it up in their vestments, do not help.

    On the other hand, protestants …

    I met one recently, claiming to be devout, met through a friend who in turn, met this one through a Tinder account. Not wishing to be impolite, I did not ask ‘if you are so involved in “real Chrstianity” as you say, what are you doing on Tinder?’

    Would guess that the church concerned is one of those were they hold their arms in the air and babble at will as the highlight of the service.

    Of course, there are other kinds, too, the Korean Lutheran churches, for example, are not heretical like their American and European counterparts have become.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  60. Che Guava says:
    @Anonymous

    You (and I suppose you are part of a little group, or have acess through multiple IP adresses) are so glib and boringly repepetive. You also frequently misrepresnt your quotes.

    Where you do give accurate paraphrases, my own feeling is that they are unfortunate Judaeo-Christian (as in the Judaizing faction in early Christianity, the only valid meaning of that term) interpolations.

    Sure, an unfortunate thing. The earliest New Testament canon was collected by Marcion of Synope. Many of the letters of St. Paul, most of the gospel of St. Luke. They were completely free of lines such as those that you are so fond of, most of the time, misquoting.

    Reconstructions of some of the epistles and of the gospel exist, thanks to the detailed attacks on them by other church fathers they are IMHO quite accurate, and are available on-line.

    If you are a serious person, which I doubt, you may gain from reading them and related commentary.

    There are two hypntheses. 1 Marcion cut all the Jewish stuff. 2 Marcion’s NT was accurate, and the Jewish stuff was later interpolated, at least in the books in his canon.

    I know it makes me a kind of heretic, although otherwise I am orthodox, but I believe hypothesis 2, for various reasons, partly textual analysis, including the obvious clumsiness of the interpolations when reading the texts freed of them.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Anon
    , @Anon
  61. @Anon

    Rome essentially created a fiction of it holding the keys to the kingdom of Heaven by Christ’s tapping of Peter as the rock upon which the Church would be built.

    The actual history of major decisions being taken in a number of eceumenical councils, e.g. Nicene Creed from the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea followed by six other major councils, suggests a number of co-equal bishoprics, each tracing their roots to one of the original Apostles, from the earliest days of Christendom, supporting Saker’s assertion.

  62. Mr. Hack says:
    @Epigon

    He will go directly against canon and interfere in eparchies of another Patriarch.

    After a lot of thought and consideration Patriarch Bartholomew feels that he’s acting on solid ground. Some of the national churches may grumble a bit, to try and show that they support Moscow, but in the end they’ll all fall in line as their own autocephaly was granted from Constantinople, and not Moscow.

    Why are you as a Papal subservient of Ukrainian “Greek” “Catholic” (neither in reality) worried about affairs of Orthodox people?

    A subservient ‘Greel Catholic’, a’Papal subervient’?? You’ve got me pegged wrong or have been smoking something very weird lately? :-)

  63. Seraphim says:
    @Druid

    Haven’t you got used with the buffooneries of ‘Echoes of History’, aka Anonymus 200, 300…?

  64. Seraphim says:
    @Che Guava

    For sure Echoes of History, aka Anonymous[139] is not a serious person. But neither is Marcion stuff a serious proposition.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  65. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Che Guava

    Not misquoting or misrepresenting. Try another tack, Jew-worshiper. The Jew Testament says some embarrassing things. You’d do well to face them honestly, instead of trying to deny it.

    • Troll: Che Guava
  66. Anonymous[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Che Guava

    Arrogant Protestant-hater. If you are so involved in “real Christianity” as you say, what are you doing in the corrupt Catholic church?

  67. Anonymous[131] • Disclaimer says:
    @anarchyst

    If “abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its universality,” then so what? Who wants a universal/globalist religion anyway? George Soros?

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  68. anarchyst says:
    @Anonymous

    The word “Catholic” means “universal”. “Universal” does not mean that races and cultures have to mix, just that the words of the Catholic Church are available to all. Nothing more.

    • Replies: @APilgrim
  69. @Fidelios Automata

    You are correct that there are good Jews. But, they are raised with a certain mindset from parents to children. That is, we are Jewish, therefore we are exceptional. Is is very dangerous for one group of people to set themselves up above another whether they are a country or a religion. In addition, Jews consider themselves Israelites first and this brings into question their loyalty to humanity or the country of their birth.

  70. Another defense of the Saker of the talmudokabbalists hidden among many words…What Jesus Himself calls the synagogue of satan for the Saker is obviously “rather pathetic and showing low level of spiritual education to put silly parenthesis around Jew”.While I definitely stand against persecution of innocent Jews when we talk about religion the first duty of a Christian is to expose the works of darkness.And there is no more virulent blasphemous religion against true Christianity than the so called Judaism

  71. Giuseppe says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Alright Saker, this, more than any of your other strange statements over the years, has convinced me that you have been, and remain, far off the beam when it comes to solidity and prudence…

    You seem to presume the Saker originated the idea of Moscow as the Third Rome. Actually, it is a very old thread that runs throughout Russian history. Rome apostatized (in this view), Constantinople was taken by the Muslims, and so the mantle of leadership fell to Moscow, the Third Rome. “And fourth there will not be.”

    It is you and your coreligionists who apostatized in 1054, as anybody with a smidgen of ecclesiastical or theological knowledge can plainly see.

    A group of five boys is playing basketball at a neighborhood outdoor court. One of the boys stops the game and tells the others he is now making the rules for the game. The other boys ignore him and keep playing as they were. The boy berates them for awhile, to no avail. They continue to ignore him. Frustrated, at last he goes home.

    Who left, the one boy or the four boys?

  72. Looks like after the shameful article that the Saker published after the downing of the Russian plane he believes that switching to Christian matters will erase the memory of it ,not so.Also his arrogant and insulting replies which he calls”telling the things by their real names”slightly paraphrased he should not bother address to this reader ,would not care less.And by the way an interesting choice of a picture under the title of the article…when we know that the abomination of desolation will be placed in the temple in Jerusalem.

  73. AP says:

    The western parts of Ukraine are the most Orthodox in the East Slavic world, yet are in schism and separate from the Church. Constantinople is fixing this and bringing them back, thank God.

    Orthodox by % of population:

    • Replies: @Anon
  74. Epigon says:

    I look forward to the schism and sight of imposters and usurpers encroaching upon church lands, monasteries, churches and cathedrals built by Russian Orthodox Church.
    Ecumenical Patriarch breaking the canon law and the very fundamental aspects of it will finally dispel any illusions regarding the Greeks, Phanariots, Ecumenical Patriarchate and the recent “Ecumenism” push.
    Autocephalus Churches will go against the Ecumenical Patriarch on this one, I expect Serb and Georgian Church to explicitly oppose it (they have problems in neighbourhood, too) while Bulgarian Church is most likely to side with Ecumenical Patriarch due to aspirations toward so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church.
    The future Ukrainian Church will end the same way in which the once 100% Uniatic Ruthenia under Polish rule ended.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  75. @AP

    Do you think these questions should be resolved with blood and iron?

    • Replies: @AP
  76. @Intelligent Dasein

    Peter and Paul are imaginary figures. Words were put in their mouths by real people, but building a reality on shadows is futile.

  77. Mr. Hack says:
    @Epigon

    The future Ukrainian Church will end the same way in which the once 100% Uniatic Ruthenia under Polish rule ended.

    ‘ended’? It’s still around, and has somewhere around 6 million adherents around the world.

  78. AP says:
    @ploni almoni

    No, and they won’t be. Police will have to make sure monasteries aren’t looted and their things smuggled to Russia but other than occasional fisticuffs it will be a rather calm process. Only about 20% of Ukraine’s Orthodox Christians identify with the Moscow Church and once the local Church is made official many of these (such as Poroshenko himself, a deacon in the Moscow Church) will happily switch to the local ones.

  79. Per the bible, the abomination is prophesied to stand in the holy place at the temple mount which is in Jerusalem -

    The Abomination That Causes Desolation

    https://is.gd/Abomination_Desolation

    The Great Deception

    https://is.gd/The_Great_Deception

    Temple Mount

    https://is.gd/Temple_Mount

    Jerusalem Temple HQ

    https://is.gd/Jerusalem_Temple_HQ

    Tribulation Trigger

    https://is.gd/Tribulation_Trigger

  80. @anonymous coward

    All you’ve done is expand the issue, not limited it. If Autocephaly for the Kyiv Patriarchate is illegitimate or schismatic, then the ROC is just as illegitimate and schismatic.

  81. @Epigon

    Ah, but it is their business. Last I looked, their capital is Kyiv, not Moscow, no matter how much you and Kirill wish it were otherwise.

  82. @Epigon

    Saker waxes amusing once more. Nice to know that he thinks the Russian Orthodox Church is illegitimate.

  83. APilgrim says:

    This pseudo-theology is demeaning to orthodoxy.

    Nothing written subsequent to the Great Schism of 1054 AD is relevant to the Church Universal.

    Rome was arrogant in 1054 which does NOT legitimize contemporary Greek pretensions.

  84. Anon[422] • Disclaimer says:
    @AP

    Kiev changed from Constantinople to Moscow due to pressure placed upon Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks as a result of a treaty between Russian and the Ottoman Empire.

    Actually, Orthodoxy in Ukraine and the Kiev Metropolia under Constantinople was abolished by the Polish in the Union of Lublin. It was Moscow that rebuilt Orthodoxy in Ukraine.

    • Replies: @AP
  85. Anon[422] • Disclaimer says:
    @AP

    Where is your data that most Orthodox in Western Ukraine are in schism?

    • Replies: @AP
  86. Anon[422] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Hack

    He’s correcting a wrong committed by the Moscow church in usurping the rights and privileges of the Ukrainian church stolen away centuries earlier.

    Moscow did not steal anything, nor was there ever a Ukrainian Church until 1990′s. Anything “Ukrainian” has no historical precedence.

    • Replies: @AP
  87. Josep says:

    I seem to recall reading once that Moses (from the book of Exodus) married a Cushite woman (interracial dating?) Miriam started complaining about the woman’s race, and God struck Miriam with leprosy.

    I also recall reading of how pre-revolutionary Russia (Orthodox), unlike the pre-WWI European powers (Catholic and/or Protestant), never fully embraced the notion of racial supremacy and saw the conquered Eastern peoples to be just as capable as the conquering Western peoples.

    https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/russia-and-the-east/

    It would be interesting to consider to which extent the Darwinian theory of evolution influences the viewpoint of the phyletists, let alone how it’s possible (if at all) for them to reconcile racial ideology with the Word of God. Then again, such views existed long before Darwin.

  88. Che Guava says:
    @Seraphim

    I might confess to my failure to completely reject the Marcionite scriptures and gospel. I do not think that my faith in those as being less authentic than the modified ones is affected by for example,

    the gay culture in Anglican. church, it is clear that they were ordaining and appointing sodomite ”priests’, and carpet-munching lady ‘priests.’

    The same camp style in the Roman bishops church in parts of the Americas and Europe It is very obvious.

    Sure, I will at any time defer to a nun, although from my reading, many became, in the U.S.A. at least, communities of mutual muffmunchers.

    I know, not all, but how, for example was Mary Daley allowed to contiue an extremely heretical teaching, far more than my small points, for until near to her death!

    I am having no idea of the numbers she led to victim suicide, but the Catholic Church may consider employing crazy bitches like Daley to spread their poisonous ideas, she sure was the main cause of the suicide of a friend. I am not usually so, so I was very pleased to read of Daley’s death. Why was the Church not expelling her much earlier?

  89. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Che Guava

    “Heretic” to the ignorant believers, but hardly to modern scholarship.

  90. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:

    For a religion that’s always boasting about its “profound spirituality, so lacking in the West,” you Eastern guys sure spend a lot of time obsession about ancient feuds and formalities.

    The “New Rome”! Get over yourselves, get outside for some light and air. It’s like Slobo with his “Greater Serbia” nonsense (what an asshole).

    Converting to E. Orth. is like marrying your Ukrainian grandmother.

  91. AP says:
    @Anon

    Actually, Orthodoxy in Ukraine and the Kiev Metropolia under Constantinople was abolished by the Polish in the Union of Lublin

    Nonsense. Is this what they teach in Russia?

    You never heard of this guy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mogila

    Russia is the one that crushed the Kiev Metropolia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_Kosiv

    Sylvester Kosiv (secular name Stefan-Adam Kosaw, Russian: Сильвестр Коссов, Ukrainian: Сильвестр Косів, Belarusian: Сільвестр Косаў; born Zharobychi, Vitebsk Voivodeship, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, died 13 April 1657) was a Ruthenian Orthodox metropolitan and Polish-Ruthenian writer. He served as metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia and all Ruthenia (1647–1657) during the Khmelnytsky uprising. His official title was Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia and All-Ruthenia.

    In 1647 he became the metropolitan of Kiev. It happened just before the Khmelnytsky Uprising, a time of uncertainty in Ukraine and in the Ruthenian church. Kosov himself was strongly opposed to union with Tsardom of Russia, and also against unreserved alliance with Poland. He condemned the 1654 treaty of Pereyaslav between the Cossack Hetmanate and the Tsardom of Muscovy. Despite being critical of some of the policies of the Cossacks, he attempted to rectify the situation and along with the Patriarch of Jerusalem Paiseus gave Bohdan Khmelnytsky a hero’s welcome when he entered Kiev in 2 January 1649 (Old Style 23 December 1648). Kosiv strived for an independent Ruthenian Orthodox Church that would be only under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and he fought against the subjugation of the Kiev metropolate to Moscow.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  92. AP says:
    @Anon

    Inference. Most Orthodox in Western Ukraine are anti-Russian, and the non-schismatic Church is owned by Moscow.

  93. AP says:
    @Anon

    Someone thinks that names are magic. Very cute.

    There was not a “Ukrainian” Church but there was a Ruthenian Church based in Kiev that was opposed to the Moscow Church, and that was forcibly integrated with the Moscow Church.

  94. Memphis says:

    Well, I took my dictionnary and looked up the definition of primacy and primate. It means a chief someone of higher rank therefore the Bishop of Rome is the chief apostle enjoying first place top to bottom. It makes no sense to say he is amongst equals. Of course he ain’t above the law but does that destroy hierarchy?

  95. APilgrim says:

    Saul of Tarsus (Paul the Apostle) wrote a number of letters (Epistles) to City Churches, such as Corinth, Galatia and Rome. The Apostles visited and lead churches in Judea, Samaria, Asia Minor, Greece, Rome and Gaul, as well as many others.

    Each church was self-governing. The Epistles were persuasive, more than commanding.

    The Eastern & Western churches should display more humility, IMHPO.

  96. Anonymous[290] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Yea indeed. They started out having everything in common and this did not work out very well, just like it did not in other places either.

    Next thing you know, Paul was taking up collections to help the poor brethren in Jerusalem. And so Paul said: ” if you don’t work you don’t eat”.

  97. APilgrim says:
    @anarchyst

    FALSE!

    The term ‘catholic’ (lower case) means universal. The term ‘Catholic’ (upper case) refers to the Church at Rome, and nothing else.

    Just another God Damned LIE!

  98. anarchyst says:

    I see the “Jack Chick” haters of the Catholic Church are out…

  99. Che Guava says:

    Well said. I am just old enough to recall stubborn places where I was, that were continuing the Tridentine mass, many years after ‘Vatican II.’

  100. Seraphim says:
    @AP

    The see of the Metropolia of Kiev an All Rus moved to Moscow in 1325 and remained there ever since. Moscow is the only legitimate successor of it. The more since it was elevated to the rank of Patriarchy.

    • Replies: @AP
  101. Seraphim says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Nonsense. The Church is hierarchycal not anarchycal.

  102. AP says:
    @Seraphim

    Interestingly enough, the guy who did this and who is Moscow’s patron saint is a Galician.

    However there was also a Metropolitan of “Kiev, Galicia, and all Ruthenia” for the Orthodox who were in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It ended when its last Metropolitan signed the Union of Brest in 1595 and switched from allegiance to Constantinople to Rome.

    In 1620 Patriarch Cyril Lucaris of Constantinople re-established the Metropolitanate of Kiev. It was ended by the Russians.

  103. Seraphim says:

    You should know that Cyril Lucaris was condemned as a heretic at two Synods of the whole Orthodox Church (Jassy 1642, Jerusalem 1672) and therefore all his decisions voided.
    Anyway, the ephemeral Metropolia of “Kiev, Galicia, and all Ruthenia” was a split from the real Metropolia functioning in Moscow and was established by the Uniate Patriarch Gregory Mammas of Constantinople in 1458. It cannot by any account pretend that it represented the true Metropolia of Kiev (of Saint Vladimir). In 1595 it signed the Union of Brest with the Catholic Church, so establishing the Ruthenian Uniate Church, renouncing all pretensions, actually de-legitimizing herself.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  104. Mr. Hack says:
    @Seraphim

    I think that it’s pompous and gay that anybody who’s a member of the Romanian Orthodox Church should comment on the internal affairs of the Ukrainian Orthodox community. From the anti-semitic stance of your church during WW2, to the current sex scandals in your church effecting the good image of Orthodoxy, I’d caution you to clean up your own mess first before butting your unwanted nose into the affairs of another church.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  105. Seraphim says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Can you get any stupider than that, Mr. Haidamak? It’s the Ukrainian ‘Orthodox community’ that is in schism. What is clearly preparing is a new Union of Brest. And yes, it is a concern for all Orthodoxy.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  106. Mr. Hack says:
    @Seraphim

    How about you, Mr. Mamaliga? How much stupider can you get, with this stupid nonsense??

    What is clearly preparing is a new Union of Brest.

    Ooh, I’m so scared…more of your half witted fantasies! :-(

  107. Seraphim says:

    Oh, my, Mr. Kasha! Fill your knishes and varnishkes. Good appetite! Add some chocolate, make sure is Roshen.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  108. Mr. Hack says:
    @Seraphim

    What, no bryndza to go along with your weak serving of mamaliga? I didn’t think so…a surprise ‘Union of Brest’ is surely the product of a deranged and overactive imagination! :-)

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  109. Seraphim says:
    @Mr. Hack

    I was once in the position to hire a lawyer who was from your beloved Galitia. He insisted to invite him to our place and serve him mamaliga! He assured us that in his childhood, in his Galitian shtetl, he had always mamaliga with cottage cheese and cream for breakfast and he was missing it very much. I was happy to oblige. Of course, there was a lot of cream and cheese. Mamaliga is nothing more than a side dish. I treated him with a ‘bulz’, the staple food of Romanian shepherds from the Carpathians (mamaliga fried in melted cheese, with lots of smoked bacon and mushrooms), watered down with shots of tzuika. How come the Galitians knew about mamaliga if not from the Romanians (the Vlachs) who were there before them? BTW, ‘brynza’ is a word that comes from the ancestors of Romanians, the Dacians, the natives of the Carpathians (long before anyone heard of the ‘Rusyn’).

    Now, in regards to ‘Unia’, the drive to submit the Orthodox Rus, Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, to the Pope is what made the troubled history of ‘Eastern Europe’ since at least Charlemagne. The fumes of the ‘Halychians’ that they are the true successors of the Great Princes of Kiev were due to the submission to the Pope Innocent IV, who proclaimed and crowned Daniel of Halych as ‘Rex Rossiae’ (while trying to be recognized as such by the Mongols also, who normally preferred to deal with the legitimate Great Prince Aleksandr Nevski). As history clearly shows, the Popes never renounced their objectives (the Union of Brest was the achievment of centuries of efforts in that direction, thwarted for a while by the resistance of the Orthodox – the Pereyaslav Council). And now they think that, under an ‘Oecumenical Patriarch’ known for his uniatist proclivities, the time had came to achieve their goals (definitely a ‘product of a deranged and overactive imagination!’).

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  110. Mr. Hack says:
    @Seraphim

    And now they think that, under an ‘Oecumenical Patriarch known for his uniatist proclivities, the time had came to achieve their goals (definitely a ‘product of a deranged and overactive imagination!’).

    The only thing that you’ve proven here is your own proclivity to imbibe in tzuika, the source I’m sure of your own deranged and overactive imagination. The Ecumenical Patriarch is not preparing some sort of Uniate putsch, Mamalignik – but keep on blabbering, you keep on making amusing and humorous statements. :-)

  111. FrJohn says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    I was with this writer UNTIL he entered into the heresy of the ‘all men are equal BS’ in the realm of ‘there is no such thing as race, nation, etc.- sorry, but that is what it is- BS – bovine scatology!

    THIS is the great negatory of the modern era- for it denies (implicitly) the very INCARNATION of Jesus Christ as a member of a specific tribe, race, and nation, and (by analogy) denies that to His followers, even if they purport to stand for the ‘C’ Church!

    The American website ‘faithandheritage.com’ clearly has written reams (from a Calvinist/Augustinian POV) AGAINST all of this tommyrot. As well they should.

    For it is GOD who created Adamkind, and it is GOD who determines that ONLY Adam’s ‘holy seed’ [Ez. 9:2] shall ‘inherit the earth.’ It goes back to this, every time. WHO IS THE TRUE ADAM? For Christ came ONLY to the 1) lost sheep of the HOUSE [oikos, Gr. 'Tribe,' nation, family"] of Israel, and 2) save HIS PEOPLE (and only those people – ‘am,’ genos’) from THEIR sins…. not each and every hominid that claims to call Him, ‘Lord, Lord.’

    • Disagree: Josep
  112. Anonymous[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    The great weakness of this article is that it tries to wed the Christian religion with modern “anti-racism”, which is really an anti-Christian concept that was founded by people who hate Jesus. Why churchmen are so blind to this fact is not merely annoying but also dangerous for the faithful. Anyway, it drowns out his other point, the religious squabble currently between the Russians and the Ukrainians. In fact, if the author is correct and nationalism is evil, then nations themselves are evil, and the church ought to be abolishing them, not bickering over who gets to appoint a bishop where.

    The author takes Paul’s heavenly allegory and tries to squeeze biology into it. If racial differences are a lie, why do NT authors make such a big deal about it? Race was as big an issue in 0 AD as today, somehow Jesus didn’t preach on it other than to say we should love our neighbor as ourself. And that it was not right to take something for the children and throw it to dogs. (Wow, I wonder what that means?) If race is a lie, then gender is a lie too. Why doesn’t the church go all the way and join the seculars in the sexual revolution? It joined the Christ haters in declaring that race does not exist, let’s join the Christ haters in declaring that gender is a social construct as well. Let’s claim trans-perversion for the Church! After all, there is not only no Jew or Greek, but also no male or female! Biology is wrong! It’s a lie! You’re a heretic if you believe otherwise! Let’s get those heretical sex-segregated restrooms out of the church, for there is only one gender: infinite genders! In fact, if this is what the church preach all along, why have haters of Christ been the standard bearers for these movements, which didn’t appear until the late 19th century?

    The author’s comment that those who use the triple parenthesis ((())) when discussing the self-chosen are committing heresy is typical of what I’ll call “ecclesiastical hyperventilation”. This is unfortunately very common from modern Orthodox authors, I think it’s an effort to show earnestness but it comes off as forced and often leads to logical absurdities.

    Under such an interpretation as this, St. John Chrysostom (and probably hundreds of other saints) would have been excommunicated; he would certainly never have made it to sainthood. BTW, Jesus and other people in the Bible used racial slurs, or at least language that shows they did not accept racial equality in the modern sense. Oops!

    Maybe we should actually practice “what has been believed everywhere, always and by all”, which would prima facie exclude the modernist and hateful doctrine that abolishes the God-ordained category of race.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.