For SCWaterfowl: The false ecumenist reality of the MP

Feel free to tell our little section of the Internet why you're right. Forum rules apply.


Post Reply
User avatar
GOCTheophan
Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon 11 September 2006 7:46 pm
Location: Ireland.
Contact:

For SCWaterfowl: The false ecumenist reality of the MP

Post by GOCTheophan »

This is from my friend, the Orthodox researcher and poet Nicholas Candela. I hope SCwaterfowl can now understand my comment about the Pope.

My God be merciful to all of us!

Theophan.

16 April 2007

Patriarch Alexei of Moscow and All Russia,
letter to Pope Benedict XVI on the occasion of his
80th birthday
(http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=documents&div=108):

Your Holiness,

I cordially greet you on the occasion of your
80th birthday. On this solemn day of your jubilee, may I
express my special admiration of your life that has
wholly been dedicated to the ministry of the Church.
You were young when you were ordained and since then
you have led a praiseworthy life culminating in your
election to the high and eminent position of the
Primate of the Roman Catholic Church.

As a minister of the Church, you have long been a
famous theologian fully dedicated to the defending and
affirming of traditional Christian values. What makes
your position especially convincing is that you as
a theologian are not merely a theoretically thinking
scholar, but above all a sincere and deeply devoted
Christian who speaks of the abundance of his heart
(cf. Matthew 12.34).

I share many of the insights of your theological
works and I would like to underline the coinciding of
our Churches' views on most vital issues with which
the modern world challenges Christianity. I am
deeply persuaded that it should become a solid basis
for good relations and mutually beneficial cooperation
between the RussianOrthodox Church and the Roman
Catholic Church.

I wholeheartedly wish you good health, many years of
life, and God's help in your high ministry.

+Alexei, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia April 16,
2007

Since the Patriarch says he shares many of the

insights in the Pope's theological works, and since he

refers to him as a minister of the Church and a famous

theologian, we should examine some of the Pope's

teachings, so we may see just what the Patriarch is

so enthused about.

Father Joseph Ratzinger---now Pope Bendict XVI---

was a modernist "theologian" at Vatican II (1962-

1965). Even though he was a priest of the Roman

organization at the time, photos reveal him at the

sessions of Vatican II in his civvies, a suit and a

tie, paling around with the "hip" Jesuit Karl Rahner,

who was also dressed like a bank clerk. Let us examine

some of the teachings of this "famous theologian," who

the Patriarch claims is "fully dedicated to the

defending and affirming of traditional Christian

values."

A supporter of aggiornamento, the updating of

the Roman "church"---that is, ever accommodating its

teaching to this world that lies in evil---Ratzinger

is a man with a mission: like all Vatican II

devotees, he seeks to promote new accommodations

while posing as a strict "traditionalist." And yet he

always tips his hand (so his flock has no excuse).

For instance, he believes the Church was in error from

the days when she declared the Nicene-

Constantinopolitan Creed:

"Perhaps it will have to be admitted that the
tendency to such a false development which sees only
the dangers of responsibility and no longer the
freedom of love, is already apparent in the Creed..."
(INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIANITY, 2004, p. 326).

He feels burdened by the witness of the true

Church:

"The question that really concerns us, the
question that really oppresses us is why it is
necessary for us in particular to practice the
Christian faith in its totality. Why, when there are
so many other ways that lead to Heaven and salvation,
it should be required of us to bear day after day the
whole burden of ecclesial dogma and of the ecclesial
ethos" (CO-WORKERS OF THE TRUTH, 1990, p. 217).

He doesn't know what to do with the barnacled

barque of his church, except to get it ship-shape in a

way that will not offend "modern man"---the Popes'

darlings. First thing overboard: the offensive idea

that there is such a thing as heresy:

"It is obvious that the old category of heresy is
no longer of any value" (THE MEANING OF CHRISTIAN
BROTHEROOD, 1966, p.88). On the Papist priest Hans
Kung, who rejects the Divinity of Christ: "In
Christology and in Trinitarian theology, he has
further distanced himself from the faith of the
Church. I respect his path, which he takes in accord
with his conscience..." (SALT OF THE EARTH, 1996, p.
96).

A professor, he whittles the Holy Scriptures to

fit the rationalist expectations of his own mind:

He refers to the book of GENESIS as full of
"...pagan creation acounts..." (A NEW SONG FOR THE
LORD, 1995, p. 86). When he reads that God made man,
he interperts this to mean that "we can even read into
this representation something like evolution." (GOD
AND THE WORLD, 2000, p. 76). On page 165 of this same
work he wonders if the book of EXODOS is literally
true, that is, did God really write on stone tablets:
"Whether they really were stone tablets is another
question...How far we should take this story literally
is another question." He mockingly asserts of Holy
Scripture: "...You find this sentence in God's great
book, so it must simply be true in itself." (ibid.,
p. 153).

He wants modern men to admire him, to recognize

him as one of their own, so he portrays

himself as dismissive of "accretions" like infant

Baptism:

"The conflict over infant baptism shows the
extent to which we have lost sight of the true value
of faith...Whenever it is severed from the
catechumenate, baptism loses its raison
d'etre...Earlier ages had devised a teaching that
seems to me rather unenlightened. They said that
baptism endows us, by means of sanctifying grace, with
the capacity to gaze upon God...The solution (infant
baptism) is itself questionable" (PRINCIPLES OF
CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, 1982, pp. 43, 401).

He does not feel obliged to follow the Church's

traditional understanding of infant Baptism, because

he doesn't believe the Church as yet exists:

"...The unity of the church is still in the
process of formation...It will be totally achieved
only in the eschaton..." (CO-WORKERS OF THE TRUTH,
1990, p. 29).

This is why he finds "Saints" outside Her:

"...In every age there have been and still are
'pagan saints'"..." (TRUTH AND TOLERANCE, 2004, p.
207).

He instructs his flock---who belong to the Church

that has not yet come into existence---in the

new "mysteries" of this imaginary church. For

instance, he rejects the true Church's teaching on

Judgment Day: the resurrection of the body and its

reunion with the soul:

"It now becomes clear that the real heart of
faith in the (general) resurrection does not consist
at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to
which we have reduced it in our thinking...The
Biblical pronouncements about the resurrection, their
essential content, are not the conception of a
restoration of bodies to souls after a long
interval...Paul teaches not the resurrection of
physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons..."
(INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIANITY, pp. 349, 353, 357-358).

Essntially Protestant in the way he places

himself above the Church, above Her tradition, above Her

phronema, he cannot tell us enough how much he loves

Protestantism:

"...Taize (the Protesant ecumenical community,
founded by Protestant Brother Roger) has been, without
a doubt, the leading example of an ecumenical
inspiration...Similar communities of faith and shared
living should be formed elsewhere..." (PRINCIPLES OF
CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, p. 304). There is a photo of him
giving "holy communion" to Protestant Brother Roger.
After Brother Roger's murder, Pope Benedict assured
his flock that "Brother Roger, founder of a non
Catholic sect...has arrived at Eternal joy." (August
16, 2005). On World Youth Day, August 19, 2005, he
said: "Brother Roger...is now visiting us and speaking
to us from on high." He even grants to the
Protestants what Saint John of Kronstadt denied them:
"Even a theology along the lines of the concept of
(Apostolic) Succession...should in no way deny the
saving presence of the Lord in the Evangelicals'
Lord's Supper" (PILGRIM FELLOWSHIP OF FAITH, 2002,p.
248).

Essentially one of the Sadducees---for they too

rejected the resurrection of the body---he feels at

home with Judaism:

"I have ever more come to the realization that
Judaism and the Christian Faith described in the New
Testament are two ways of appropriating Israel's
Scriptures, two ways that in the end are both
determined by the position one assumes with regard to
the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. The scripture we
today call (the) Old Testament is in itself open to
both ways" (MILESTONES, 1998). "It is of course
possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not
directed toward Christ: it does not point
unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the
promises as being fulfilled in him (sic: he never
capitalizes the pronouns referring to the Lord), this
is not just ill-will on their part, but genuinely
because of the obscurity of the texts...There are
perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old
Testament refers to Christ, and for saying, 'No, that
is not what he (sic) said'" (GOD AND THE WORLD, p.
209). In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission
published THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THE SACRED SCRIPTURES
IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE. This book states that "Jewish
Messianic expectation is not in vain" (II, A5)---as if
the Lord and His Apostles and the Holy Fathers had not
taught that unbelieving Jews await ANTICHRIST. The
Pontifical Commission continues: "To read the Bible as
Judaism does, necessarily involves an implicit
acceptance of all (Judaism's) presuppositions, which
exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of
God...Christians can and ought to admit that the
Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one." Guess
who wrote the approving preface to this piece of
Judaizing filth? Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Why not?
In 2000 he'd written in GOD AND THE WORLD: "...(The
Jews') NO to Christ brings the Israelites into
conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the
same time we know that they are assured of the
faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from
salvation..." (pp. 150-151). On August 19, 2005,
Benedict XVI participated in a Jewsh "worship" service
at a synagogue in Koln, Germany. I've seen the video.
He applauded the cantor's operatic---because
triumphalistic---performance of Jewish prayers: the
Jewish audience regarded the Pope's presence and
participation as as sign that Christ Himself blessed
them to contune pretending they should be following
the Law of Moses...as if Christ had not come. The Pope
prayed with Jews the Kaddish. On January 16, 2006 he
wrote to the Chief Rabbi of Rome: "Distinguished Chief
Rabbi, you were recently entrusted with the spiritual
guidance of Rome's Jewish community...I offer you my
heartfelt good wishes for your mission..." His
MISSION?Anyone even vaguely familiar with the
teachings of the rabbis would recoil in horror that a
man who claims to represent Christ wishes the mission
to de-Christify the world, the Scriptures,and the
Church, as a mission worthy of "good wishes." Notice
how his phatic language is the same as the
Patriarch's: it has no inner Christian content. Alexei
spoke similarly contentless words to the rabbis of New
York. Sounds "nice"... because it is the voice of the
devil.

Bold son of the Ecumenist Revolution, the Pope

loves Islam, too. He's written a book, JOHN PAUL II

MY BELOVED, and the whole world's seen the photo of

that poor man kissing the Koran which denies

the Divinity and the Crucifixion of Christ.

"This year is the 40th anniversay of the
Conciliar declaration NOSTRA AETATTE (Vatican II),
which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and
spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as
well as esteem for the other great relgious
traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them.
Its followers worship the same God (as Jews and
Christians) and willingly refer to the Patriarch
Abraham" (cathechesis, August 24, 2005). "The
believer---and all of us, as Christians and Muslims
are believers---knows that despite his weakness he can
count on the spirtual power of prayer...You guide
Muslim believers and train them in the formation of
the younger generation" (Address to reprensentatives
of Islam, August 20,2005).

These are some of Pope Benedict's teachings. The

only reason Patriarch Alexei II could say he shares

these "insights" is because he is just as benighted as

the Pontiff. Soon he will be commemorated in every

ROCOR church.

Don't say no one warned you.

scwaterfowl

Post by scwaterfowl »

Theophan,
As to your last sentence/paragraph; I'll be the first to let you know!!
As for now, I will trust the decisions of my Metropolitan and bishops.
Please don't worry about me; I'm sure that you think I'm quite stupid, but I feel pretty confident about this one...
sc

User avatar
GOCTheophan
Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon 11 September 2006 7:46 pm
Location: Ireland.
Contact:

Post by GOCTheophan »

scwaterfowl wrote:

Theophan,
As to your last sentence/paragraph; I'll be the first to let you know!!
As for now, I will trust the decisions of my Metropolitan and bishops.
Please don't worry about me; I'm sure that you think I'm quite stupid, but I feel pretty confident about this one...
sc

Just out of interest do you believe that the ROCOR Bishops are infallible? That Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail aganist the Russian Church like they have done aganist the Roman one? That is the impression that you give. Look at the link supplied and at that website, it gives plenty of evidence from their own mouths of the apostasy of your MP Bishops. Your reasoning is papist to say the least.

I for one believe that the Bishops of the Geniune Orthodox Church of Greece could fall away at some future date, infact I believe that they will ALL either fall away or be killed (and maybe quiet soon). Yet for the moment they are all Orthodox.

Theophan.

User avatar
GOCTheophan
Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon 11 September 2006 7:46 pm
Location: Ireland.
Contact:

Post by GOCTheophan »

scwaterfowl wrote:

Theophan,
As for now, I will trust the decisions of my Metropolitan and bishops.
Please don't worry about me; I'm sure that you think I'm quite stupid, but I feel pretty confident about this one...
sc

Please read below written by Fr Seraphim Rose on the ORTHODOX and Patristic teaching of Blessed Averky of Jordanville and than explain to me why it is not Orthodox.

I should worry about you a lot more than I do. Stupidity has nothing to do with it- there are very carnally intelligent people who support the idea of free abortion on demand. There are carnally stupid people who became great Orthodox saints. I dont consider you Orthodox. What else you might be I have no idea, but you are not a Christian.

Theophan.

INIQUITY FROM ABOVE
The last form of role-playing that Archbishop Averky talks about is done by those in clerical authority. This form is perhaps the most influential increating a pseudo-Orthodoxy, since it is the church leaders who are supposed to set the "tone" for church life.
Authorities who lack true apostolic zeal may still work zealously for personal ends or for the benefit of their parties. Archbishop Averky wrote that, for them, "the Church is nothing more than one of the ordinary human organizations where they wish to play some sort of leading role…"40 In another place he stated:

They have not unsuccessfully been taking control of the Church into their own hands, trying to become the complete and unchecked directors of people's religious and church lives and even applying ecclesiastical discipline for those who refuse to obey them so they can keep everyone in their power without opposition or rebellion.41

Code: Select all

Having a wordly concept of authority, they think that htier first responsibility is the smooth running of their church's external apparatus rather than the salvation of souls. Since the practice of loving, fatherly pastorship is beyond them, they view obedience to them as a soulless fulfilling of a standard code of behavior necessary for the functioning of the organization. Because they are objectively endowed with clerical rank, having a form of godliness but denying the power therof (2 Timothy 3:5), they can quote many canons to affirm their absolute control. These canons are, of course, maninful only if they are applied in the right spirit, with pastoral discernment and according to the conscience of the Church.42 Many innocent believers, having outward standards imposed on them from above in an artifical context, feel the have to conform themselves to it at all costs. In the words of Archbishop Averky, they "fall under the unfluence" of unspiritual leaders, "and in their naive thoughtlessness support them in their conceited undertakings as some sort of 'maintainers of law and order!'"43 Thus, to the extent that the church leader triest to play a role, his flock is expected to go along with his worldly idea of authority and play the role of unthinking cattle. The authorities set the false example and the people, who may never have been given the "real thing," have nothing to contrast it with. They cannot distinguish between official and genuine, soul-saving Orthodox pastorship; and therefore they seek out pastors not for spiritual reasons, but to be first of all "legitimate" members of the right church party. (It should also be said that if for some reason this search ends in naught, there is seen another negative result of placing too much value on officialness: bitterness at not being considered "legitimate.")
Under unspiritual guides, a kind of paralysis can set in among the faithful. A symptom of this is seen when people become afraid to take any initiative according to the dictates of individual conscience, having been led to believe that anyone who disturbs the status quo has no right to exist. They become ashamed to show through their actions that they love God with all their hearts or that they love those saints of God who might not yet be "official."
The use of authority for worldly ends is especially wrong for hierarchs since, as monastic pastors of laymen, they are supposed to provide the leaven of otherworldliness for those living in the world. Their function is to inspire, guide and encourage all the pious attempts of believers at brining some goodness to this fallen earth, rather than to seize control of these attempts, to standardize and take all the "risk" out of them until there is no fresh inspiration left.
One of Archbishop Averky's phrases was "iniquity from above," iniquity that comes from the "lawful authorities" and is therefore not questioned. In calling attention to this manner of wrongdoing, he was not advocating people to wage war on authorities or to be immediately suscpicious of someone just because he is in a respected position. Rather, he was exhorting people not to unreflectively conform themselves to the "letter of the law" without knowing whether the law was being used for a godly purpose or being manipulated for personal gaid. In one place he wrote:

True Orthodoxy is alien to eery dead formalism. In it there is no blind adherence to the "letter of the law," for it is spirit and life (St. John 6:63). Where, from an external and purely formal point of view, everything seems quite correct and strictly legal, this does not mean that it is so in reality… Orthodoxy is the one and only Truth, the pure Truth, without any admixture or the least shadow of alsehood, lie, evil or fraud.44

Code: Select all

Anything that stands in the way of Christ's Truth is an idol. Therefore, if one follows the decrees of a church leader when they are opposed to the commandments of Christ, then one is making an idol of "officialness." This idolizing leads to the idea that "if the leaders are wrong, there is no hope!" As Archbishop Averky made clear, however, one will never be withouthope as an Orthodox Christian so long as one preserves a spiritual understanding of the Church. "The 'gates of hell,'" he wrote, "will not prevail against the Church, but they have and certainly can prevail against many who consider themselves pillars of the Church, as is shown by Church history."45
There can be no question of Archbishop Averky's stance. If something is done of false principles, we should not accept or keep silent about it because it is performed in an official capacity, because it is "iniquity from above:"

Meekness and humility do not mean spinlessness, and should not yield before manifest evil. A true Christian…should always be uncompromising towards evil, fighting with it by all measures and means available to him, in order decisively to cut off the spread and strengthening of evil among men.46

Code: Select all

Again, Archbishop Averky stressed the dangers of self-effacingly seeking acceptance or recognition from any kind of authorities simply because of their "legal" status:

Any effort on our part to befriend those "holding authority" at the present tim when the "many antichrists" who are openly or secretly fighting against Christ and His Church are so obviously in control, any effort slavishly to please them, flatter them, and do what htey want, even to try for some degree of "legalization" from them is a betrayal of Christ our Saviour and enmity towards Him, even if those who act in this way are wearing the dress of clergymen.47

Code: Select all

In this statement, Archbishop Averky gives a good explanation of the principle of Sergianism. This principle, by which Metropolitan Sergius capitulated to the godless Soviet authority in order to remain "legal" and preserve the functioning of the church institution,48 is not merely something that is somewhere else, in Soviet Russia. It is a universal category of the human soul which only happened to take a dramatic form in the person of Metropolitan Sergius: it is the doing of something wrong or the acceptance of a lie in order to obtain the temporal advantage of being "official," albeit "for the good of the Church."
"Thus," wrote Fr. Seraphim Rose in the spirit of Archbishop Averky, "some people can find themselves in a position that may be 'legally correct' but is at the same time profoundly un-Christian—as if the Christian conscience is compelled to obey any command of the church authorities, as long as these authorities are properly 'canonical.' This blind concept of obedience for its own sake is one of the chief causes for the success of Sergianism in our century—both within and outside the Moscow Patriarchate."49
The final manifestation of the Sergianist principle will be the submission of even the most "traditional" Christians to the Antichrist himself. They will not be forced to agree with the Antichrist's ideas and methods. All that will be required of them is their recognition of his authority, which they will give in order to perserve the hierarchy, the church organziation, the church services, and the possiblity of openly receiving the Sacraments. Their betrayal will not consist of their clinging to canonical forms, but rather in their placing these forms above faithfulness to Christ, which is the first responsibility of the Church.
The Holy Fathers have a very definite teaching on this, based on the Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian. They comment on the fact that the seal of the Antichrist will not be placed on the forehead and the hand simultaneously, but on the forehead or the hand (Apocalypse 13:16). According to St. Andrew of Caesarea, those who receive it on their foreheads will share the Antichrist's way of thinking, while those who receive it on their right hands will only recognize his authority, saying that it is permissable to do this "if only one remains a Christian in one's soul… The banishing of the grace of the Holy Spirit through the mark of the beast fills the heart of all such ones with the first sign—fearfulness—which will bring them to any easy destruction."50
In view of this patristic teaching, Archbishop Averky could readily forsee how all ecclesiastical organizations—ecumenical and "anti-ecumenical, innovative and traditional—would one day bow down before Antichrist. Those whose fear of temporal authority overrides their fear of God will rely on their fallen minds to justify this submission, for thier hearts and consciences can never justify it. They will try to sustain their church institutions by relinquishing the spiritual freedom and heroic confession which, as Archbishop Averky reiterated, will alone sustain the invincible Body of Christ. Thus will come to pass the prediction of St. Ignatius Brianchininov quoted by Archbishop Averky:

One can suppose, too, that the institution of the Church which has been tottering for so long will fall terribly and suddenly. INdeed, no one is able to stop or prevent it. The present means to sustain the institutional Church are borrowed from the elements of this world, thing inimical to the Church, and the consequence will be only to accelerate its fall… May the merciful Lord defend
the remnant who believe in Him. But this remnant is meager, and it becomes more and more so.

scwaterfowl

Post by scwaterfowl »

I'm not a Christian??!! Or even Orthodox??!!
Whatever...

And I'm the bad guy here; go figure.

Though I'm sure Juvenaly (and a few others) would agree with that assessment. I reckon the best I can hope for is that y'all view me as some poor, delusional schmuck that doesn't know right from wrong.
Please forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over this...
sc

User avatar
GOCTheophan
Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon 11 September 2006 7:46 pm
Location: Ireland.
Contact:

Post by GOCTheophan »

scwaterfowl wrote:

I'm not a Christian??!! Or even Orthodox??!!
Whatever...

And I'm the bad guy here; go figure.

Though I'm sure Juvenaly (and a few others) would agree with that assessment. I reckon the best I can hope for is that y'all view me as some poor, delusional schmuck that doesn't know right from wrong.
Please forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over this...
sc

To be a properly a Christian you have to believe the Orthodox Church and strive to obey Her. I have given the reasons that I believe you are doing neither. You havent answered my question....or shown me where Blessed Averky is wrong in what he said (which is shows the antichrist essence of what you have being saying).

Please show us where we are wrong.

Thank you.

T.

Post Reply