Translate

Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Roman Church. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Roman Church. Mostrar todas las entradas

jueves, 19 de febrero de 2026

The Weeping For Tammuz





THE PAGANISM OF LENT AND WEEPING FOR TAMMUZ!

Let me say right up front that if you already know the origins of ‘Shrove Tuesday’, Ash Wednesday, the Forty days of Lent and Easter Sunday but still stubbornly insist on observing them, then you show yourself to be nothing but a nominal ‘Christian’ like the Roman Catholics, and some Protestant Churches have a name that they live but are dead! [Rev 3:1] 


For those real Christian Brethren who have just come to know the Lord and are searching their Bibles diligently to find whether these things be so [Act 17:11], I must tell you that you will not find them in the BIBLE. Neither the Apostles nor the Early Church observed these things. So WHERE do they come from?

‘Shrove Tuesday’ or Mardi Gras as it is commonly known literally means “Fat Tuesday” in French [called Pancake Tuesday in England] and is associated with the Roman Catholic custom of Lent. But is it taught in the Bible? Would God want Christians to observe it?

The idea behind Mardi Gras or carnival celebrations is that people overindulge before giving up something for Lent, which begins the following day with Ash Wednesday. [Lent is the 40 weekdays from Ash Wednesday to Easter observed by the Roman Catholic, Eastern and some Protestant churches as a period of penitence and fasting.]

Lent was a time of penance, of fasting, of abstinence. Folks abstained from all sorts a good stuff including meat. They also gave up eggs and dairy products. So on Tuesday, the day before the start of the Lenten fast, folks cleared out their cupboards of all the foods they could not have for the next 40 days. They cooked them up and ate like pigs. In essence THEY FEASTED BEFORE THE FAST.

Unlike New Year’s, Christmas, Halloween, St. Valentine’s Day and other pagan holidays that are celebrated by the secular, non-religious world, the Lenten season is observed by dedicated religious believers.

From Ash Wednesday to Easter, many solemnly mark their foreheads with ash, “fasting” [or abstaining from certain foods or physical pleasures] for 40 days. This is done to supposedly imitate Jesus Christ’s 40-day fast in the wilderness [Matt. 4:1-2]. Some give up smoking. Others give up chewing gum. Still others give up over-eating or cursing. People vow to give up anything, as long as it prepares them for Easter.

People who observe Lent may be religious, dedicated and sincere—BUT THEY ARE SINCERELY WRONG!

Let us examine Lent, its practices and customs, its historic and religious origins, and its true meaning from the Bible’s perspective, not from the “traditions of men” [Mark 7:7-9].



The Purpose of Lent

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “the real aim of Lent is, above all else, to prepare men for the celebration of the death and Resurrection of Christ…the better the preparation the more effective the celebration will be. One can effectively relive the mystery only with purified mind and heart. The purpose of Lent is to provide that purification by weaning men from sin and selfishness through self-denial and prayer, by creating in them the desire to do God’s will and to make His kingdom come by making it come first of all in their hearts.”

On the surface, this belief sounds sincere. However, IT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE BIBLE, GOD’S HOLY WORD, the only source of true spiritual knowledge and understanding [John 17:17]. God, through the apostle Paul, commands Christians to “continue you in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing of whom you have learned them; and that from a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” [II Tim. 3:14-17].

First, understand that the “celebration of the death and Resurrection of Christ” to which the preceding quote refers is so-called “Good Friday” and “Easter Sunday”— HOLIDAYS DEEPLY ROOTED IN ANCIENT PAGANISM. They were instituted by mainstream Christianity in order to counterfeit and replace the Passover season.

Second, the Bible says that we are purified—cleansed, set apart and made pure in God’s sight—by the shed blood of Jesus Christ [Heb. 9:11-14, 22; 13:12]. This, along with faith [Acts 15:9] and humbly submitting to and obeying God [James 4:7-10] through His truth and prayer [John 17:17; I Tim. 4:5], makes us clean before God. NO AMOUNT OF FASTING, ABSTAINING FROM PHYSICAL PLEASURES OR ANY OTHER FORM OF SELF-DENIAL CAN PURIFY US!



Pagan Origins of Lent

Lent was never observed by Christ or His apostles. He commanded His disciples to “Go you therefore, and teach all nations…teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” [Matt. 28:19-20]. And Lent or Easter was not one of them!

Alexander Hislop wrote in his book The Two Babylons: “The festival, of which we read in Church history, under the name of Easter, in the third and fourth centuries, was quite a different festival from that now observed in the Romish Church, and at that time was not known by any such name as Easter…That festival [Passover] was not idolatrous, and it was preceded by no Lent. Lent was not observed by the first century Church! It was first addressed by the church at Rome during the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, when Emperor Constantine officially recognized that church as the Roman Empire’s state religion. Any other form of Christianity that held to doctrines contrary to the Roman church was considered an enemy of the state.

Today, Lent is used for “fasting from sin and from vice…forsaking sin and sinful ways.” It is a season “for penance, which means sorrow for sin and conversion to God.” This tradition teaches that fasting and employing self-discipline during Lent will give a worshipper the “control over himself that he needs to purify his heart and renew his life.”

However, the Bible clearly shows that self-control—temperance—comes from having God’s Holy Spirit working in the life of a converted mind [Gal. 5:16, 17, 22]. FASTING—OF AND BY ITSELF—CANNOT PRODUCE GODLY SELF-CONTROL.

Paul warned against using self-denial as a tool to rely on your own will. He called it “will worship.” “Wherefore if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are you subject to ordinances, [touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;] after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh” [Col. 2:20-23].

GOD DID NOT DESIGN FASTING AS A TOOL FOR PENANCE, “BEATING YOURSELF UP” OR DEVELOPING WILL POWER: “Is it such a fast that I have chosen? A day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Will you call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord? Is not this the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that you break every yoke? Is it not to deal your bread to the hungry, and that you bring the poor that are cast out to your house? When you see the naked, that you cover him; and that you hide not yourself from your own flesh?” [Isa. 58:5-7].

God’s people humble themselves through fasting in order to draw closer to Him—so that they can learn to think and act like Him—so that they can live His way of life in all things. Notice what the prophet Jeremiah wrote: “Thus says the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glories glory in this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, says the Lord” [9:23-24]. Fasting [and prayer] helps Christians draw closer to God.

Coming from the Anglo-Saxon Lencten, meaning “spring,” LENT ORIGINATED IN THE ANCIENT BABYLONIAN MYSTERY RELIGION. “The forty days’ abstinence of Lent WAS DIRECTLY BORROWED FROM THE WORSHIPPERS OF THE BABYLONIAN GODDESS…Among the Pagans this Lent seems to have been an indispensable preliminary to the great annual festival in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Tammuz” [The Two Babylons].

Tammuz was the false Messiah of the Babylonians—a SATANIC COUNTERFEIT OF JESUS CHRIST!

The Feast of Tammuz was usually celebrated in June [also called the “month of Tammuz”]. Lent was held 40 days before the feast, “celebrated by alternate weeping and rejoicing.” This is why Lent means “spring”; it took place from spring to early summer.

The Bible records ancient Judah worshipping this false Messiah: “Then He brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz” [Ezek. 8:14-15]. THIS WAS A GREAT ABOMINATION IN GOD’S EYES!

But why did the church at Rome institute such a pagan holiday?

“To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated, and, by a complicated but skillful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in general, to get Paganism and Christianity—now far sunk in idolatry—in this as in so many other things, to shake hands” [The Two Babylons].

The Roman church replaced Passover with Easter, moving the pagan Feast of Tammuz to early spring, “Christianizing” it. Lent moved with it.

“This change of the calendar in regard to Easter was attended with momentous consequences. It brought into the Church the grossest corruption and the rankest superstition in connection with the abstinence of Lent” [The Two Babylons].

Before giving up personal sins and vices during Lent, the pagans held a wild, “anything goes” celebration to make sure that they got in their share of debaucheries and perversities — WHAT THE WORLD CELEBRATES AS MARDI GRAS TODAY.

Pagan Abomination masked as Christianity!

God is not the author of confusion [I Cor. 14:33]. He never instituted Lent, a pagan observance connecting debauchery to the supposed resurrection of a false Messiah.

God commands His people TO FOLLOW HIM—NOT THE TRADITIONS OF MEN. God’s ways are higher, better than man’s [Isa. 55:8-9]. Men cannot determine for themselves right from wrong or how to properly worship God. Why? Because “the heart [mind] is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” [Jer. 17:9], and “the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” [10:23]. God designed us and gave us life. He knows how we are supposed to worship Him.

To be a Christian and properly serve God, you must live “by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” [Matt. 4:4], recognizing that His Holy Scriptures “cannot be broken” [John 10:35].

GOD COMMANDS CHRISTIANS TO FLEE FROM THE PAGAN TRADITIONS AND CUSTOMS OF THIS WORLD [REV. 18:2-4], CURRENTLY LED AND DECEIVED BY SATAN THE DEVIL [II COR. 4:4; REV. 12:9].

Lent may seem like a sincere, heartfelt religious observance. But it is deeply rooted in pagan ideas that counterfeit God’s plan.

God hates all pagan observances [Jer. 10:2-3; Lev. 18:3, 30; Deut. 7:1-5, 16]. They cannot be “Christianized” or made clean by men. That includes Lent.

If you are a true Christian you would say with David- “Through thy precepts I get understanding: THEREFORE I HATE EVERY FALSE WAY”! [Psalm 119:104]

miércoles, 7 de mayo de 2025

Roman Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon

 


'And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: and upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.' 

Revelation 17:1-18


Roman Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon



And there followed another angel saying: "Babylon is fallen is fallen that great city because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." 

Now what is the wine wine represents false doctrine in Scripture wine is a mocker strong drink is raging
and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. 

The effect of this wine isdeception because it is fermented wine, which leads people away from the truth
so in contrast to the first angel's message which presents true doctrine Babylon is preaching wine or false doctrine.

The darkness of night obscures from view the truth about the world around us. Confusion like the darkness has concealed from us the truth about the character of God.

False doctrines and ideas are likethe trees of the forest that change with the seasons they blow about in the wind and rise and fall through the centuries.

There's only one way to dispel the darkness and that is with light. Peter tells us we have a more sure Word of Prophecy where unto ye do well that you take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place and with a light from these prophecies we are able to identify this system called Babylon, the system of Babylon is reflected by this woman uh in Revelation chapter 17.
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored Beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

The first three symbols that help us to identify Babylon are the Woman, the Beast and the seven heads in order to arrive at a correct understanding of these symbols we must allow the Bible to define them for us so here's what God has to say about the prophetic symbol of a woman.

I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman. Zion was the name given to the people of God as we read in Isaiah say unto Zion thou art My people. So in the Old Testament a woman is used by God as a symbol to represent His people in the New Testament a woman still is used to represent God's people in the form of his church, for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother
and shall be joined unto his wife and they too shall be one flesh this is a great mystery but I speak concerning Christ in the church,

In the book of Revelation there are two women one is a virgin dressed in white representing God's church and the other woman named Babylon is a harlot meaning she represents a counterfeit church and
she is the one sitting upon a beast. Once again allowing the Bible to interpret its own symbols we turn to the book of Daniel to define the symbol of the beast. The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth according to Daniel, a beast is a symbol for a kingdom or a nation, since the Bible uses a woman as a symbol for a church and the beast for a symbol of a nation then this symbol of a woman sitting upon a beast is a symbol of a church in control of a nation or a kingdom in other words this nation is
both a church and state power. Next John says that this beast has seven heads and the Bible tells us what
these heads represent just six verses later and here is the mind which hath wisdom the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman siteth the fact that this woman sits upon this beast with seven heads tells us this church and state power is located near seven mountains john goes on to describe
this woman in detail and the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of
abominations and filthiness of her fornication and upon her forehead was a name written mystery Babylon the great the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. 

Our fourth clue is that this woman or church named Babylon is described as a harlot meaning she has committed adultery against God by forsaking His covenant so this church does not represent God's people, instead it represents a counterfeit church. Our fifth characteristic is the woman's appearance she is described being a raid with purple and scarlet colors having allowed the Bible to define its own
symbols we see God telling us Babylon is a church and state power located around seven mountains and it is a counterfeit church that appears primarily in purple and scarlet colors there's only one church that fits this definitive description the Roman Catholic Church, also known as the papacy. So let's investigate the evidence for this conclusion: Vatican City is the only church and state nation in the world it is known as the city on seven hills and its primary colors are purple and scarlet.

During the Protestant Reformation, many of the reformers, including Thomas Cranmer, John Wesley, William Tinddale, John Wycliffe, Felipe Melanchton, John Hus, Martin Luther and hundreds of others, all concluded the papacy was the harlot of Babylon identified in the Scriptures.
I for my part will set free my own mind and deliver my conscience by declaring aloud to the pope and to all papists that the papacy is in truth nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and the very antichrist for who is the man of sin and the son of predition but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and predition of souls in the church while he yet sits in the church as if he were God. 

All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny first principles of the reformation by Martin Luther page the second angel's message is a warning against the wine of Babylon and the intoxicating influence of its false doctrines which have deceived the entire world.

Yes, even the Christian world this great feat was not accomplished at once but subtly over several centuries when you think about Jesus's statement just before he left he said "This gospel shall be preached in all the world and then the end will come." We see the disciples going out preaching this Gospel but we see that the end did not come the reason I believe is because that Gospel became tainted and a different gospel began to go out into all the world in part two of this series. 
We saw how the everlasting gospel and the everlasting covenant are revealed through the sanctuary but now we're going to take a look at a prophecy in the book of Daniel where the sanctuary comes under attack that's what's really being described here an attack on the Gospel and the covenant by replacing it
with a counterfeit covenant according to Daniel 8, the Bible talks about this little horn power that would defile the sanctuary yay he magnified himself even to the prince of the host and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away and the place of his sanctuary was cast down and in host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression and it cast down the truth to the ground and
it practiced and prospered and the little horn there's no doubt as you look at the sequence of the chapter that it's speaking about the Roman Catholic papacy.

Daniel's prophecy is telling us that the papacy would magnify himself and exalt himself even above Christ the prince of the host and by the papacy the truths represented by the sanctuary and Jesus ministry in heaven would be cast to the ground instead of looking to Jesus as our high priest in the heavenly sanctuary the people were taught to look to human priests in a counterfeit sanctuary upon the earth.

-------------------------------------------------

lunes, 12 de abril de 2021

Papism vs. Orthodox Christianity



CONTRASTS BETWEEN ROMAN CATHOLICISM AND ORTHODOXY to Assist Orthodox in Better Understanding our Faith

A PERSONAL and NON-OFFICIAL PRESENTATION Some issues may be oversimplified and lack nuances forsake of brevity By:Fr. A. James Bernstein -Last updated 2/23/2021Asterisks * and Red indicates Major Issues of Difference

PURPOSE: This chart is meant to provide a brief overview for Orthodox Christians of what are, in my opinion,contrasts between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. It is not meant to be comprehensive. As such,some issues may be oversimplified. 

QUALIFICATION: In presenting the Orthodox Christian positions I have purposely presented the positions assingular. In reality there exists within the history of Orthodoxy differing views, some which have been significantly influenced by Western Roman Catholic scholastic theology, culture and practice. My presentation ignores those influences and focuses on what I consider mainstream teachings and practices most clearly in continuity with the Apostolic/Patristic Church.

Read this pdf:  CONTRASTS BETWEEN ROMAN-CATHOLICISM AND ORTHODOXY

 

+++

lunes, 7 de diciembre de 2020

The Immaculate Conception Heresy - La Herejía de la Inmaculada Concepción




ENGLISH:
The following excerpt, from The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God by our modern day Saint John Maximovitch, Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco, is an Orthodox Christian response to the Papist belief of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. The Immaculate Conception, the belief that the Mother of God was conceived and born without sin, was declared a dogma of the Papist Church by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854. The feast of the Immaculate Conception is a holy day of obligation for Roman Catholics.

Orthodox Christians, on the other hand, do not subscribe to the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, we do not have a feast day for it either. We do however have an important feast, on which we celebrate the Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anna. There is a difference, a profound one, for Orthodox Christians.

We Orthodox believe that the Panagia was conceived and born in a state of sin since she is a human being just like the rest of us. Only Christ was free of sin. We do venerate the Panagia highly though. She is the holiest of all the Saints and is like a member of our families. We do believe that the Panagia committed no actual personal sins. We believe that both through God’s grace and her free cooperation with God’s grace – both go together- she committed no sin. We believe she overcame every temptation to sin and thus remained ever pure, even in her mind and soul. There is a synergy, a cooperation, going on between God and the Panagia. She exercises her free will to respond to God.

The teaching of the complete sinlessness of the Mother of God does not correspond to Sacred Scripture, where there is repeatedly mentioned the sinlessness of the “One Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 2:5); “and in Him is no sin” (1 John 3:5); “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.” (1 Peter 2:22); “One that hath been in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15); “Him who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf” (II Cor. 5:21). But concerning the rest of men it is said, Who is pure of defilement? No one who has lived a single day of his life on earth (Job 14:4). God commendeth His own love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us…If, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life” (Rom. 5:8-10).

This teaching contradicts also Sacred Tradition, which is contained in numerous Patristic writings, where there is mentioned the exalted sanctity of the Virgin from her very birth, as well as her cleansing by the Holy Spirit at her conception of Christ, but not at her own conception by Anna. “There is none without stain before Thee, even though his life be but a day, save Thou alone, Jesus Christ our God, Who didst appear on earth without sin, and through Whom we all trust to obtain mercy and remission of sins.” (St. Basil the Great, Third Prayer of Vespers of Pentecost.) “But when Christ came through a pure, virginal, unwedded, God-fearing, undefiled Mother without wedlock and without father, and inasmuch as it befitted Him to be born, He purified the female nature, rejected the bitter Eve and overthrew the laws of the flesh” (St. Gregory the Theologian, “In Praise of Virginity”). However, even then, as Sts. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom speak of this, She was not placed in the state of being unable to sin, but continued to take care of Her salvation and overcame all temptations (St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on John, Homily 85; St. Basil the Great, Epistle 160).

The teaching that the Mother of God was purified before her birth, so that from her might be born the Pure Christ, is meaningless; because if the Pure Christ could be born only if the Virgin might be born pure, it would be necessary that her parents also should be pure of original sin, and they again would have to be born of purified parents, and going further in this way, one would have to come to the conclusion that Christ could not have become incarnate unless all His ancestors in the flesh, right up to Adam inclusive, had been purified beforehand of original sin. But then there would not have been any need for the very Incarnation of Christ, since Christ came down to earth in order to annihilate sin.

The teaching that the Mother of God was preserved from original sin, as likewise the teaching that she was preserved by God’s grace from person sins, makes God unmerciful and unjust; because if God could preserve Mary from sin and purify her before her birth, why does He not purify other men before their birth, but rather leaves them in sin? It follows likewise that God saves men apart from their will, predetermining certain ones before their birth to salvation.

This teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God’s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consist? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glorify Her? If she, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is she crowned more than everyone else? There is no victory without an adversary.

The righteousness and sanctity of the Virgin Mary were manifested in the fact that she, being “human with passions like us,” so loved God and gave herself over to Him, that by her purity she was exalted high above the rest of the human race. For this, having been foreknown and forechosen, She was vouchsafed to be purified by the Holy Spirit Who came upon her, and to conceive of Him the very Saviour of the world. The teaching of the grace-given sinlessness of the Virgin Mary denies her victory over temptations; from a victor who is worthy to be crowned with crowns of glory, this makes her a blind instrument of God’s Providence.

It is not an exaltation and greater glory, but a belittlement of her, this “gift” which was given her by Pope Pius IX and all the rest who think they can glorify the Mother of God by seeking out new truths. The Most Holy Mary has been so much glorified by God Himself, so exalted is her life on earth and Her glory in heaven, that human inventions cannot add anything to her honor and glory. That which people themselves invent only obscures her face from their eyes. Brethren, take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, wrote the Apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit (Col. 2:18).

Such a vain deceit is the teaching of the Immaculate Conception by Anna of the Virgin Mary, which at first sight exalts, but in actual fact belittles her. Like every lie, it is a seed of the Father of Lies (John 8:44), the devil, who has succeeded by it in deceiving many who do not understand that they blaspheme the Theotokos. Together with it there should also be rejected all the other teaching which have come from it or are akin to it. The striving to exalt the Most Holy Virgin to an equality with Christ ascribing to her maternal tortures at the Cross an equal significance with the sufferings of Christ, so that the Redeemer and “Co-Redemptrix” suffered equally, according to the teaching of the Papists, or that “the human nature of the Mother of God in heaven together with the God-Man Jesus jointly reveal the full image of man” (Archpriest S. Bulgakov, The Unburnt Bush, p. 141) – is likewise a vain deceit and a seduction of philosophy. In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:39), and Christ has redeemed the whole human race; therefore at His Resurrection equally did “Adam dance for joy and Eve rejoice” (Sunday Kontakia of the First and Third Tones), and by His Ascension did the Lord raise up the whole of human nature.

Likewise, that the Mother of God is a “complement of the Holy Trinity” or a “fourth Hypostasis”; that “the Son and the Mother are a revelation of the Father through the second and Third Hypostases”; that the Virgin Mary is a “creature, but also no longer a creature” – all this is the fruit of vain, false wisdom which is not satisfied with what the Church has held from the time of the Apostles, but strives to glorify the Holy Virgin more than God glorified her.

Thus are the words of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus fulfilled: “Certain senseless ones in their opinion about the Holy Ever-Virgin have striven and are striving to put her in place of God” (St. Epiphanius, “Against the Antidikomarionites”). But that which is offered to the Virgin in senselessness, instead of praise of her turns out to be blasphemy; and the All-Immaculate One rejected the lie, being the Mother of Truth (John 14:6).


St. John (Maximovich) of Shanghai and San Francisco


----------
ESPAÑOL:
El siguiente extracto, de La veneración ortodoxa de la Madre de Dios por nuestro actual San Juan Maximovitch, arzobispo de Shanghai y San Francisco, es una respuesta cristiana ortodoxa a la creencia papista de la Inmaculada Concepción de la Virgen María. La Inmaculada Concepción, la creencia de que la Madre de Dios fue concebida y nació sin pecado, fue declarada dogma de la iglesia papista por el Papa Pío IX el 8 de diciembre de 1854. La fiesta de la Inmaculada Concepción es un día sagrado de obligación para los católicos romanos. 

Los cristianos ortodoxos, por otro lado, no se suscriben a la Inmaculada Concepción. Por lo tanto, tampoco tenemos un día festivo. Sin embargo, tenemos una fiesta importante, en la que celebramos la Concepción de la Theotokos por Santa Ana. Hay una diferencia, profunda, para los cristianos ortodoxos. 

Los ortodoxos creemos que la Panagia fue concebida y nació en estado de pecado ya que es un ser humano como el resto de nosotros. Solo Cristo estaba libre de pecado. Sin embargo, veneramos mucho la Panagia. Ella es la más santa de todos los santos y es como un miembro de nuestra familia. Creemos que la Panagia no cometió ningún pecado personal real. Creemos que tanto a través de la gracia de Dios como de su cooperación libre con la gracia de Dios, ambas van juntas, ella no cometió ningún pecado. Creemos que ella superó todas las tentaciones de pecar y, por lo tanto, permaneció siempre pura, incluso en su mente y alma. Hay una sinergia, una cooperación, entre Dios y Panagia. Ejerce su libre albedrío para responder a Dios.

La enseñanza de la total impecabilidad de la Madre de Dios no corresponde a la Sagrada Escritura, donde se menciona repetidamente la impecabilidad del “Único Mediador entre Dios y los hombres, Jesucristo hombre” (1 Ti. 2: 5); “Y en él no hay pecado” (1 Juan 3: 5); "El cual no pecó, ni se halló engaño en su boca". (1 Pedro 2:22); “Uno que fue tentado en todo según nuestra semejanza, pero sin pecado” (Hebreos 4:15); “Al que no conoció pecado, por nosotros lo hizo pecado” (II Cor. 5:21). Pero del resto de los hombres se dice: ¿Quién es puro de contaminación? Nadie que haya vivido un solo día de su vida en la tierra (Job 14: 4). Dios alaba su propio amor para con nosotros en que, siendo aún pecadores, Cristo murió por nosotros ... Si, siendo enemigos, fuimos reconciliados con Dios por la muerte de su Hijo, mucho más, estando reconciliados, seremos salvos por su vida ”(Rom. 5: 8-10). 

Esta enseñanza contradice también la Sagrada Tradición, contenida en numerosos escritos patrísticos, donde se menciona la exaltada santidad de la Virgen desde su mismo nacimiento, así como su purificación por el Espíritu Santo en su concepción de Cristo, pero no en la propia. concepción por Ana. “No hay nadie sin mancha delante de ti, aunque su vida sea un día, salvo tú solo, Jesucristo nuestro Dios, que apareciste en la tierra sin pecado, y en quien todos confiamos para obtener misericordia y remisión de pecados”. (San Basilio el Grande, Tercera Oración de las Vísperas de Pentecostés.) “Pero cuando Cristo vino por una Madre pura, virginal, soltera, temerosa de Dios, inmaculada, sin matrimonio y sin padre, y en la medida en que le convenía nacer, Purificó la naturaleza femenina, rechazó la amarga Eva y anuló las leyes de la carne ”(San Gregorio el Teólogo,“ En Alabanza de la Virginidad ”). Sin embargo, incluso entonces, como los Sabtos Basilio el Grande y Juan Crisóstomo hablan de esto, Ella no fue colocada en el estado de no poder pecar, sino que continuó cuidando de Su salvación y venció todas las tentaciones (San Juan Crisóstomo, Comentario sobre Juan, Homilía 85; Basilio el Grande, Epístola 160).

La enseñanza de que la Madre de Dios fue purificada antes de su nacimiento, para que de ella pudiera nacer el Cristo puro, no tiene sentido; porque si el Cristo Puro pudiera nacer sólo si la Virgen pudiera nacer pura, sería necesario que sus padres también fueran puros del pecado original, y tendrían que nacer de nuevo de padres purificados, yendo más allá de esta manera. , uno tendría que llegar a la conclusión de que Cristo no podría haberse encarnado a menos que todos sus antepasados ​​en la carne, hasta Adán inclusive, hubieran sido purificados de antemano del pecado original. Pero entonces no habría habido ninguna necesidad de la misma Encarnación de Cristo, ya que Cristo descendió a la tierra para aniquilar el pecado. 

La enseñanza de que la Madre de Dios fue preservada del pecado original, así como la enseñanza de que fue preservada por la gracia de Dios de los pecados de la persona, hace a Dios despiadado e injusto; porque si Dios pudo preservar a María del pecado y purificarla antes de su nacimiento, ¿por qué no purifica a otros hombres antes de su nacimiento, sino que los deja en pecado? De la misma manera, Dios salva a los hombres aparte de su voluntad, predeterminando a ciertos antes de su nacimiento para la salvación.

Esta enseñanza, que aparentemente tiene por objeto exaltar a la Madre de Dios, en realidad niega por completo todas sus virtudes. Después de todo, si María, incluso en el vientre de su madre, cuando ni siquiera podía desear nada bueno o malo, fue preservada por la gracia de Dios de toda impureza, y luego por esa gracia fue preservada del pecado incluso después de su nacimiento, entonces ¿en qué consiste su mérito? Si ella pudo haber sido colocada en el estado de no poder pecar, y no pecó, entonces ¿por qué la glorificó Dios? Si ella, sin ningún esfuerzo y sin tener ningún tipo de impulso de pecar, permaneció pura, entonces ¿por qué es coronada más que todos los demás? No hay victoria sin adversario. 

La justicia y santidad de la Virgen María se manifestaron en el hecho de que ella, siendo “humana con pasiones como nosotros”, amó tanto a Dios y se entregó a Él, que por su pureza fue exaltada por encima del resto de la raza humana. . Por esto, habiendo sido conocida y elegida de antemano, se le concedió ser purificada por el Espíritu Santo que vino sobre ella, y concebirlo como el mismísimo Salvador del mundo. La enseñanza de la impecabilidad otorgada por la gracia de la Virgen María niega su victoria sobre las tentaciones; de un vencedor digno de ser coronado con coronas de gloria, esto la convierte en un instrumento ciego de la Providencia de Dios.

No es una exaltación y una gloria mayor, sino un menosprecio de ella, este “don” que le dio el Papa Pío IX y todos los demás que piensan que pueden glorificar a la Madre de Dios buscando nuevas verdades. La Santísima María ha sido tan glorificada por Dios mismo, tan exaltada es su vida en la tierra y su gloria en el cielo, que las invenciones humanas no pueden agregar nada a su honor y gloria. Lo que la gente misma inventa solo oculta su rostro a sus ojos. Hermanos, mirad que no haya quien os saquee con la filosofía y el vano engaño, según la tradición de los hombres, según los rudimentos del mundo y no según Cristo, escribió el apóstol Pablo por el Espíritu Santo (Col. 2:18). 

Tan vano engaño es la enseñanza de la Inmaculada Concepción de Ana de la Virgen María, que a primera vista la exalta, pero en realidad la menosprecia. Como toda mentira, es una semilla del Padre de la Mentira (Juan 8:44), el diablo, que ha logrado engañar a muchos que no entienden que blasfeman contra la Theotokos. Junto con él, también deben rechazarse todas las demás enseñanzas que provienen de él o que son afines. El esfuerzo por exaltar a la Santísima Virgen a la igualdad con Cristo atribuyendo a sus torturas maternas en la Cruz un significado igual al de los sufrimientos de Cristo, para que el Redentor y la “Corredentora” sufrieran por igual, según la enseñanza de los papistas, o que “la naturaleza humana de la Madre de Dios en el cielo junto con el Dios-Hombre Jesús conjuntamente revelan la imagen completa del hombre” (Arcipreste S. Bulgakov, The Unburnt Bush, p. 141) - es igualmente un vano engaño y una seducción de la filosofía. En Cristo Jesús no hay hombre ni mujer (Gá. 3:39), y Cristo ha redimido a toda la raza humana; por lo tanto, en Su Resurrección igualmente “Danzó Adán de gozo y Eva se regocijó” (Kontakia dominical de los tonos primero y tercero), y por Su Ascensión el Señor levantó toda la naturaleza humana.

Asimismo, que la Madre de Dios es un “complemento de la Santísima Trinidad” o una “cuarta hipóstasis;" que “el Hijo y la Madre son revelación del Padre a través de la segunda y tercera hipóstasis;" que la Virgen María es una “criatura, pero tampoco más criatura” - todo esto es fruto de una sabiduría falsa y vana que no se satisface con lo que la Iglesia ha sostenido desde la época de los Apóstoles, sino que se esfuerza por glorificar al Santo Virgen más que Dios la glorificó. 

Así se cumplen las palabras de San Epifanio de Chipre: “Ciertos insensatos en su opinión sobre la Santa Siempre Virgen se han esforzado y se esfuerzan por ponerla en el lugar de Dios” (San Epifanio, “Contra los antidikomarionitas”). Pero lo que se ofrece a la Virgen sin sentido, en lugar de alabanza de ella, resulta ser una blasfemia; y el Todo-Inmaculado rechazó la mentira, siendo la Madre de la Verdad (Juan 14: 6). 

San Juan (Maximovich) de Shanghai y San Francisco



lunes, 30 de noviembre de 2020

The New Calendar Innovation and Its Fruits - El Nuevo Calendario y Sus Frutos


ENGLISH:
Dr. Constantine Cavarnos on the Views of the Blessed Elder Philotheos

The problem that has been created in the Orthodox Church by the introduction of the New Calendar, known as the Gregorian Calendar (named after Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it into the Latin Church in 1582), is one that worried the late Greek Elder, Blessed Philotheos (Zervakos), very much, from the time of its introduction into the Orthodox Church in 1924 until his death. He dwelt upon it in his publications and in his letters of counsel to those who were under his spiritual direction.[1] The New, Papal Calendar and Its Fruits [To Neon, Papikon Hemerologion kai hoi Karpoi Autou]—a 40-page pamphlet—is his most extensive treatment of this innovation. It was published at Thessaloniki by the periodical St. Nectarios. The date when it was published is not listed. From internal evidence, particularly the reference to an article by Archbishop Iakovos (of the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America), which appeared on September 25, 1967, it is clear that it was published sometime after that date.

Two quotations at the beginning of the pamphlet serve as an introduction to what Father Philotheos has to say. The first, taken from the Seventh Holy Œcumenical Synod, states: "If someone sets aside any tradition [of the Church], written or unwritten, let him be anathema." The second, which is taken from St. Augustine, says: "Let there be no innovations, because innovations defile antiquity. For the Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church, are without blemish." The discussion of the Calendar innovation starts with an explanation of how it was introduced into the Church of Constantinople in 1924 by Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis and soon, the same year, by Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of Athens. (Later, the New Calendar was adopted by the Patriarchates of Bulgaria, Rumania, and Alexandria. The Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Serbia, and Russia, the Archbishopric of Mount Sinai, and the Holy Mountain of Athos have avoided this innovation.)

The holy Elder states that when he learned that the New Calendar was going to be introduced into the Church of Greece, he wrote a letter to Archbishop Chrysostomos entreating him not to introduce the Papist Calendar, because this innovation would divide the Church into hostile parts. He remarked that "the Traditional, Old Calendar neither caused any harm to the Church in the past nor is causing any harm now, whereas the adoption of the New Calendar would banish peace from the Christian population of Greece, would cause divisions, confusion, malice, and turmoil" (pp. 4-5).

Chrysostomos, he says, did not heed this counsel and proceeded to introduce the New Calendar. The consequences were exactly those which Blessed Philotheos had foreseen. This prompted him to write a second letter to Chrysostomos, in which he said: "The fruits of the New Calendar which you introduced thoughtlessly, anticanonically, and unlawfully are the banishment of love and the generation of malice. It banished happiness and brought sorrow. It banished peace and brought division, disputes, quarrels, and warfare. Before, the Christians were united and you divided them. The Orthodox Church, which for twenty centuries was one, you divided into two: that of the Old Calendarists and that of the New Calendarists" (p. 6). Unfortunately, remarks the venerable Elder, Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos paid no attention to this letter, either.

From that time on, he goes on to say, there began the fruits of the New Calendar. "The first ones to reap these fruits," he observes, "were those who introduced it" (p. 7). He explains that the Patriarch of Constantinople Meletios Metaxakis was beaten by zealous Orthodox Christians of Constantinople and was forced to seek refuge in Greece.... After a time, he became Patriarch of Alexandria. Then he sought to become Patriarch of the more prestigious Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Having failed in this, he fell sick from sorrow. Tortured by disease and censured by his conscience, Meletios Metaxakis died saying: "I am suffering because I split the Church" (p. 7).

As far as Archbishop Chrysostomos is concerned, Father Philotheos informs the reader that this innovator was struck in the face and head with scissors as he stood at the Bishop’s Throne in a Church in the city of Piraeus. The man who struck him was a barber who wanted to humiliate him by shearing off his beard. Father Philotheos proceeds to describe in detail various other fruits of the New Calendar innovation: divisions, dissensions, quarrels, hatreds, various forms of going astray (pp. 8-31).

The Elder asserts that "the Old Calendarists did well in not accepting the Papist Calendar—which was introduced into the Orthodox Church anticanonically and unlawfully—and following the Traditional, Old Calendar, which was handed down to us by the Holy Fathers of the First Holy Œcumenical Synod" (p. 28).

Having described some of the evil fruits of the Calendar innovation, Father Philotheos proceeds to give advice as to what should be done in order to reunite the members of the Orthodox Church and put an end to the grievous dissensions and hatreds. As far as Greece is concerned, he says that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece should meet and canonically and lawfully reject the New Calendar and introduce the Old, Traditional one. "If the government should object, let the government keep the New Calendar for its dealings and correspondence with other nations; while the Church ought to keep for itself the Old Calendar for its holy feasts" (p. 32). He adds that "if perchance some clergymen and laymen, who are philo-Papists or philo-Protestants, innovators and modernists, should oppose this, the Church should admonish them once or twice. If they do not repent but persist in their opposition, the Church should expel them as corrupt members" (p. 32).

Continuing, Father Philotheos adds that the rejection of the New Calendar and the restoration of the Traditional one is necessary not only in order to put an end to the division of the Church, to dissensions and hatreds, but also for the following reasons: a) because following the Old Calendar is a tradition of the Church, and those who reject it are subject to the anathema of the Seventh Holy Œcumenical Synod, which is quoted at the beginning of his treatise; and b) because the introduction of the New Calendar abolishes the Fast of the Holy Apostles, which is an old tradition of the Church: sometimes it abolishes this fast completely and sometimes reduces it to only one or two days. (Originally, this fast was a seven-day one, then it became longer.)

Finally, Blessed Philotheos notes that as a Church calendar the New Calendar has been condemned and anathematized by three Regional Synods (in 1583, 1587, and 1593). This pamphlet has the merit of putting the Calendar problem in proper perspective, dealing with its essential aspects in a brief, clear, incisive manner. New Calendarists think that the question is about thirteen days, about astronomical correctness, and view the Old Calendarists as simply stubborn, ignorant persons who are averse to scientific improvements. Father Philotheos makes no mention of "astronomical correctness" vs. "astronomical incorrectness," because this is not really the point at issue. What is at issue is whether Orthodox Christians should remain faithful to Tradition, or are free to innovate as they please, with a view to some political or other secular expediency, without regard to the Church’s canonical way of doing things and without regard to foreseeable evil consequences ("fruits") of their innovations for the Church.

It should be added that the New Calendar was introduced into the Orthodox Church not for the sake of astronomical correctness, but as the first step in achieving a forced, false union of the Orthodox Church with Unorthodox New Calendarist Christian bodies, for the sake of certain secular advantages which such a union was expected to have. This was to be the beginning of the Orthodox Church’s participation in the "Ecumenical Movement"—a movement which has further divided the Orthodox Church into mutually hostile parties: the Ecumenists and the anti-Ecumenists. All the Greek Old Calendarists are anti-Ecumenists, while some of the New Calendarists are Ecumenists and others are anti-Ecumenists. Thus, the evil fruits of the introduction of the New Calendar, which the Blessed Elder clearly foresaw, keep growing in number.

--------
ESPAÑOL:
El Dr. Constantine Cavarnos sobre las opiniones del bendito anciano Philotheos 

El problema que ha sido creado en la Iglesia Ortodoxa por la introducción del Nuevo Calendario, conocido como Calendario Gregoriano (llamado así por el Papa Gregorio XIII, quien lo introdujo en la Iglesia Latina en 1582), es uno que preocupó al fallecido Anciano Griego, Beato Philotheos (Zervakos), muchísimo, desde el momento de su introducción en la Iglesia Ortodoxa en 1924 hasta su muerte. Se detuvo en ello en sus publicaciones y en sus cartas de consejo a quienes estaban bajo su dirección espiritual. [1] El nuevo calendario papal y sus frutos [Para Neon, Papikon Hemerologion kai hoi Karpoi Autou] —un folleto de 40 páginas— es su tratamiento más extenso de esta innovación. Fue publicado en Salónica por el periódico San Nectarios. No se incluye la fecha en la que se publicó. De la evidencia interna, particularmente la referencia a un artículo del Arzobispo Iakovos (de la Iglesia Ortodoxa Griega de América del Norte y del Sur), que apareció el 25 de septiembre de 1967, está claro que fue publicado en algún momento posterior a esa fecha.

Dos citas al comienzo del folleto sirven como introducción a lo que el padre Philotheos tiene que decir. El primero, tomado del Séptimo Santo Sínodo Ecuménico, dice: "Si alguien deja de lado alguna tradición [de la Iglesia], escrita o no escrita, sea anatema". El segundo, tomado de San Agustín, dice: "Que no haya innovaciones, porque las innovaciones contaminan la antigüedad. Porque el Esposo y Su Esposa, la Iglesia, no tienen tacha." La discusión sobre la innovación del Calendario comienza con una explicación de cómo fue introducida en la Iglesia de Constantinopla en 1924 por el Patriarca Meletios Metaxakis y pronto, el mismo año, por el Arzobispo Chrysostomos Papadopoulos de Atenas. (Más tarde, el Nuevo Calendario fue adoptado por los Patriarcados de Bulgaria, Rumania y Alejandría. Los Patriarcados de Jerusalén, Serbia y Rusia, el Arzobispado del Monte Sinaí y la Montaña Sagrada de Athos han evitado esta innovación). 

El santo anciano afirma que cuando se enteró de que el Nuevo Calendario iba a ser introducido en la Iglesia de Grecia, le escribió una carta al Arzobispo Chrysostomos pidiéndole que no introdujera el Calendario Papista, porque esta innovación dividiría a la Iglesia en partes hostiles. Comentó que "el Calendario Antiguo Tradicional no causó ningún daño a la Iglesia en el pasado ni lo está causando ahora, mientras que la adopción del Nuevo Calendario desterraría la paz de la población cristiana de Grecia, causaría divisiones, confusión, malicia y confusión "(págs. 4-5).

Chrysostomos, dice, no hizo caso de este consejo y procedió a presentar el Nuevo Calendario. Las consecuencias fueron exactamente las que había previsto el beato Filoteos. Esto le llevó a escribir una segunda carta a Crisóstomo, en la que decía: "Los frutos del Nuevo Calendario que introdujiste sin pensar, anticanónicamente e ilegalmente son el destierro del amor y la generación de la malicia. Desterró la felicidad y trajo el dolor. Desterró la paz y trajo división, disputas, querellas y guerras. Antes, los cristianos estaban unidos y tú los dividías. La Iglesia Ortodoxa, que durante veinte siglos fue una, la dividiste en dos: la de los Antiguos Calendaristas y la de Nuevos calendaristas "(p. 6). Desafortunadamente, comenta el venerable anciano, el arzobispo Chrysostomos Papadopoulos tampoco prestó atención a esta carta. 

A partir de ese momento, continúa diciendo, comenzaron los frutos del Nuevo Calendario. "Los primeros en cosechar estos frutos", observa, "fueron los que los introdujeron" (p. 7). Explica que el Patriarca de Constantinopla Meletios Metaxakis fue golpeado por celosos cristianos ortodoxos de Constantinopla y se vio obligado a buscar refugio en Grecia ... Después de un tiempo, se convirtió en Patriarca de Alejandría. Luego buscó convertirse en Patriarca del más prestigioso Patriarcado de Jerusalén. Habiendo fracasado en esto, cayó enfermo de dolor. Torturado por la enfermedad y censurado por su conciencia, Meletios Metaxakis murió diciendo: "Estoy sufriendo porque he dividido la Iglesia" (p. 7).

En lo que respecta al arzobispo Chrysostomos, el padre Philotheos informa al lector que este innovador recibió un golpe en la cara y la cabeza con unas tijeras mientras se encontraba en el trono del obispo en una iglesia en la ciudad de El Pireo. El hombre que lo golpeó era un barbero que quería humillarlo cortándole la barba. El padre Philotheos procede a describir en detalle varios otros frutos de la innovación del Nuevo Calendario: divisiones, disensiones, disputas, odios, diversas formas de extravío (págs. 8-31). 

El anciano afirma que "los antiguos calendaristas hicieron bien en no aceptar el calendario papista, que se introdujo en la Iglesia ortodoxa de manera anticanónica e ilegal, y en seguir el antiguo calendario tradicional, que nos fue transmitido por los santos padres del Primer Santo "Sínodo ecuménico" (pág. 28). 

Habiendo descrito algunos de los frutos malignos de la innovación del Calendario, el padre Philotheos procede a dar consejos sobre lo que se debe hacer para reunir a los miembros de la Iglesia Ortodoxa y poner fin a las graves disensiones y odios. En cuanto a Grecia, dice que el Santo Sínodo de la Iglesia de Grecia debería reunirse y rechazar canónica y legalmente el Nuevo Calendario e introducir el Antiguo y Tradicional. "Si el gobierno se opone, que el gobierno mantenga el Nuevo Calendario para sus tratos y correspondencia con otras naciones; mientras que la Iglesia debe guardar para sí el Antiguo Calendario para sus fiestas santas" (p. 32). Añade que "si acaso algunos clérigos y laicos, que son filopapistas o filosotestantes, innovadores y modernistas, se opusieran a esto, la Iglesia debería amonestarlos una o dos veces. Si no se arrepienten sino que persisten en su oposición, el La Iglesia debería expulsarlos por ser miembros corruptos "(p. 32).

Continuando, el Padre Philotheos agrega que el rechazo del Nuevo Calendario y la restauración del Tradicional es necesario no solo para poner fin a la división de la Iglesia, a las disensiones y odios, sino también por las siguientes razones: a) porque seguir el Antiguo Calendario es una tradición de la Iglesia, y quienes lo rechazan están sujetos al anatema del Séptimo Santo Sínodo Ecuménico, que se cita al comienzo de su tratado; yb) porque la introducción del Nuevo Calendario suprime el Ayuno de los Santos Apóstoles, que es una antigua tradición de la Iglesia: a veces suprime este ayuno por completo ya veces lo reduce a sólo uno o dos días. (Originalmente, este ayuno era de siete días, luego se hizo más largo). 

Finalmente, el Beato Filoteo señala que, como calendario de la Iglesia, el Nuevo Calendario ha sido condenado y anatematizado por tres Sínodos Regionales (en 1583, 1587 y 1593). Este panfleto tiene el mérito de poner el problema del Calendario en su debida perspectiva, abordando sus aspectos esenciales de una manera breve, clara e incisiva. Los nuevos calendaristas piensan que la pregunta es sobre trece días, sobre la corrección astronómica, y ven a los viejos calendaristas como personas simplemente obstinadas e ignorantes que son reacias a las mejoras científicas. El padre Philotheos no menciona la "corrección astronómica" versus la "incorrección astronómica", porque este no es realmente el punto en cuestión. Lo que está en cuestión es si los cristianos ortodoxos deben permanecer fieles a la Tradición, o son libres de innovar como les plazca, con miras a alguna conveniencia política o secular, sin tener en cuenta la forma canónica de hacer las cosas de la Iglesia y sin tener en cuenta el mal previsible. consecuencias ("frutos") de sus innovaciones para la Iglesia. 

Debe agregarse que el Nuevo Calendario se introdujo en la Iglesia Ortodoxa no en aras de la corrección astronómica, sino como el primer paso para lograr una unión forzada y falsa de la Iglesia Ortodoxa con los organismos cristianos del Nuevo Calendarismo no ortodoxo, por el bien de ciertos ventajas seculares que se esperaba que tuviera tal unión. Este iba a ser el comienzo de la participación de la Iglesia Ortodoxa en el "Movimiento Ecuménico", un movimiento que ha dividido aún más a la Iglesia Ortodoxa en partidos mutuamente hostiles: los ecumenistas y los antiecumenistas. Todos los antiguos calendaristas griegos son antiecumenistas, mientras que algunos de los nuevos calendaristas son ecumenistas y otros son antiecumenistas. Así, los malos frutos de la introducción del Nuevo Calendario, que el Bendito Anciano claramente previó, siguen creciendo en número.



+++

sábado, 14 de noviembre de 2020

Josaphat the Malevolent - Josafat El Malévolo

 

ENGLISH:
Josaphat the Malevolent by Nicholas Maas

The year 1996 will mark the four-hundredth anniversary of the shameful "Union" of Brest-Litovsk, in which political, economic, and military pressure was brought to bear on millions of Orthodox Christians living along the Western borders of Russia, Byelorussia, and Ukraine, in order to force them to accept a false union with the Roman Catholic Church. One of the principal participants in this violently depraved movement was an apostate Orthodox Bishop (one of many, unfortunately) by the name of Josaphat Kontzevich.

One need not resort to polemics to speak ill of Josaphat Kontzevich. His vile tongue, his foul epithets, his disloyalty, his love of glory and worldly power and recognition, and his violent campaigns of terror against the Orthodox—these things allow history to speak for us. It is thus astonishing that the Roman Catholic Church elected to "canonize" this monster of the Eastern religious world, as one Western historian has called him, and to elevate to the status of sainthood a man who fomented and fostered violence-indeed, even murdering the name of Church unity. Considering the magnitude of Josaphat's brutality and insane intolerance, it is perhaps prudent for us, on the eve of the sorrowful anniversary of the forced union of Brest-Litovsk, to look at this pivotal figure in Eastern European history.

Josaphat, Uniate Bishop of Polotsky and founder of the Uniate Basilian order, was more than an apostate. He was a master practitioner of the "psychology of terror." He was not the first to employ psychological terror tactics. Nor was he the last. The ancient Assyrians, it is said, used systematic psychological intimidation to subdue the inhabitants of their empire [1] their own final demise having been celebrated in the Old Testament by the Prophet Nahum (Nahum 3:18-19). And in modern times, communist regimes in Eastern Europe (some now happily defunct) and China are well known for their psychological terror tactics. But Josaphat is unique, in that he is the only terrorist in history to have gained the crown of beatification for what has earned other such despots unending vilification.

Josaphat's campaign of terror was designed and executed with one purpose in mind: to discourage and prevent Orthodox Christians from practicing their ancestral Faith. Since the Orthodox masses would not willingly follow their Bishops, a handful of priests, and the nobility into apostasy, Josaphat and his fellow apostates consciously chose to achieve their ends by violent means. They did this by trying to create, among the Orthodox faithful, a feeling of utter despair and powerlessness, so that, like Marshal Petain centuries later, Josaphat could impose on them an artificial religion, a Vichy theocracy, over which he would be the administrator. Worshippers were forced out of their Churches, many leaving only on the end of a bloody sword. When the Orthodox, in one instance, set up tents in which to worship, Josaphat encouraged his brigands to disrupt their services, set fire to the tents, and attack the clergy and believers. And with the help of the Latin civil authorities, Josaphat saw to it that Orthodox priests were exiled and that no new Orthodox Bishops were Consecrated. [2] His pogrom violently put down any resistance to the Brest "Union" and left the Orthodox ostensibly powerless to protest the loss of their Faith to Papal domination.

In the final analysis, Josaphat's terror tactics were no more successful than those of other deranged despots. For his crimes against humanity, this most virulent apostate and pervert was beaten and stoned to death by outraged believers and dispatched to his just reward in 1623. His inhumane brutality earned him even the disdain of the Roman Catholic Chancellor of Lithuanian. [3] Moreover, Orthodox believers never really accepted the Unia or Josaphat's fellow apostate Bishops, who, despite their cowardly efforts to win such recognition, were also never accorded the political rights of their Latin counterparts. [4] In the end, millions of Orthodox returned to the Faith when border changes occurred in the nineteenth century, just as many Greek Catholics in America later embraced Orthodoxy with the help of the New Martyr Tikhon, then Administrator of the Russian Churches in the New World.

The idea of the Unia as a bridge between Orthodoxy and Rome died with Josaphat and his violent, vulgar witness. His spirit may live on in the efforts of Latin ecumenists to reduce Orthodoxy to an "Eastern branch" of the Latin Church, or of Orthodox ecumenists to defile their Faith by another false union with Rome; but among those of an Orthodox conscience, Josaphat's sad memory is but clear evidence that "something is rotten in ecumenism" and that unions of compromise that render the faithful masses powerless will not ultimately succeed—even if their advocates are given a crown of supposed sanctity dripping with the blood of martyrs. modern Orthodox ecumenists should look at this awful and despicable man and his fate. Polish and Lithuanian military force could not help his betrayal to survive. The Herculean efforts of today's ecumenists to carry on his legacy will likewise end in the ignominy and shame that fell upon him. And if blood drips from his crown, hypocrisy will flow from the ill-conceived garlands that they hope to gain by courting, in the name of the Faith, those who have been its enemies.

Endnotes
1. M. Healy, The Ancient Assyrians (London: Osprey, 1991), pp. 8-9.
2. N. Zernov, Eastern Christendom (New York. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1961), pp. 147-148.
3. Deacon H. Ivanov-Treenadzaty, "The Vatican and Russia," Orthodox Life, March-April 1990, pp. 8-24.
4. N. Zernov, The Russians and their Church (London: S.P.C.K, 19,54), p. 87.
Mr. Maas is a Uniate convert to the Orthodox Faith. From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XI, No. 3, pp. 48-50.

----------
ESPAÑOL:
Josafat el Malévolo por Nicholas Maas 

El año 1996 marcará el cuatrocientos aniversario de la vergonzosa "Unión" de Brest-Litovsk, en la que la presión política, económica y militar se ejerció sobre millones de cristianos ortodoxos que viven a lo largo de las fronteras occidentales de Rusia, Bielorrusia y Ucrania, para obligarlos a aceptar una falsa unión con la Iglesia Católica Romana. Uno de los principales participantes en este movimiento violentamente depravado fue un obispo ortodoxo apóstata (uno de muchos, desafortunadamente) llamado Josaphat Kontzevich. 

No es necesario recurrir a la polémica para hablar mal de Josaphat Kontzevich. Su lengua vil, sus repugnantes epítetos, su deslealtad, su amor por la gloria y el poder y el reconocimiento mundanos, y sus violentas campañas de terror contra los ortodoxos, estas cosas permiten que la historia hable por nosotros. Por tanto, es asombroso que la Iglesia Católica Romana haya elegido "canonizar" a este monstruo del mundo religioso oriental, como lo ha llamado un historiador occidental, y elevar al estatus de santidad a un hombre que fomentó y fomentó la violencia; de hecho, incluso asesinando el nombre de la unidad de la Iglesia. Teniendo en cuenta la magnitud de la brutalidad y la insana intolerancia de Josafat, tal vez sea prudente para nosotros, en vísperas del doloroso aniversario de la unión forzada de Brest-Litovsk, mirar a esta figura fundamental en la historia de Europa del Este. 

Josafat, obispo uniata de Polotsky y fundador de la orden uniata basiliana, era más que un apóstata. Fue un maestro practicante de la "psicología del terror." No fue el primero en emplear tácticas de terror psicológico. Tampoco fue el último. Se dice que los antiguos asirios utilizaron la intimidación psicológica sistemática para someter a los habitantes de su imperio [1], habiendo sido celebrada su propia muerte final en el Antiguo Testamento por el profeta Nahum (Nahum 3: 18-19). Y en los tiempos modernos, los regímenes comunistas en Europa del Este (algunos ahora felizmente desaparecidos) y China son bien conocidos por sus tácticas de terror psicológico. Pero Josafat es único, en el sentido de que es el único terrorista en la historia que ha ganado la corona de beatificación por lo que le ha valido a otros déspotas un sinfín de vilipendios.

La campaña de terror de Josafat fue diseñada y ejecutada con un propósito en mente: desalentar y prevenir que los cristianos ortodoxos practiquen su fe ancestral. Dado que las masas ortodoxas no seguirían voluntariamente a sus obispos, a un puñado de sacerdotes y a la nobleza a la apostasía, Josafat y sus compañeros apóstatas eligieron conscientemente lograr sus fines por medios violentos. Lo hicieron tratando de crear, entre los fieles ortodoxos, un sentimiento de absoluta desesperación e impotencia, de modo que, como el mariscal Pétain siglos después, Josafat pudiera imponerles una religión artificial, una teocracia de Vichy, de la que sería el administrador. . Los fieles fueron expulsados ​​de sus iglesias, muchos de los cuales se marcharon solo con el extremo de una espada ensangrentada. Cuando los ortodoxos, en un caso, instalaron tiendas de campaña para adorar, Josafat animó a sus bandidos a interrumpir sus servicios, prender fuego a las tiendas y atacar al clero y los creyentes. Y con la ayuda de las autoridades civiles latinas, Josafat se encargó de que los sacerdotes ortodoxos fueran exiliados y de que no se consagraran nuevos obispos ortodoxos. [2] Su pogromo sofocó violentamente cualquier resistencia a la "Unión" de Brest y dejó a los ortodoxos aparentemente impotentes para protestar por la pérdida de su fe ante la dominación papal. 

En el análisis final, las tácticas de terror de Josafat no tuvieron más éxito que las de otros déspotas trastornados. Por sus crímenes contra la humanidad, este apóstata y pervertido más virulento fue golpeado y apedreado hasta la muerte por creyentes indignados y enviado a su justa recompensa en 1623. Su brutalidad inhumana le valió incluso el desdén del canciller católico de Lituania. [3] Además, los creyentes ortodoxos nunca aceptaron realmente a los obispos apóstatas compañeros de Unia o Josafat, quienes, a pesar de sus cobardes esfuerzos para ganar tal reconocimiento, tampoco recibieron los derechos políticos de sus homólogos latinos. [4] Al final, millones de ortodoxos regresaron a la fe cuando se produjeron cambios fronterizos en el siglo XIX, al igual que muchos católicos griegos en América más tarde abrazaron la ortodoxia con la ayuda del nuevo mártir Tikhon, entonces administrador de las iglesias rusas en el Nuevo mundo.

La idea de la Unia como puente entre la ortodoxia y Roma murió con Josafat y su testimonio violento y vulgar. Su espíritu puede vivir en los esfuerzos de los ecumenistas latinos para reducir la ortodoxia a una "rama oriental" de la Iglesia latina, o de los ecumenistas ortodoxos para contaminar su fe mediante otra unión falsa con Roma; pero entre los de conciencia ortodoxa, el triste recuerdo de Josafat no es más que una clara evidencia de que "algo está podrido en el ecumenismo" y que las uniones de compromiso que dejan a las masas fieles impotentes no tendrán éxito en última instancia, incluso si sus defensores reciben una corona de supuesta santidad chorreando sangre de mártires. Los ecumenistas ortodoxos modernos deberían mirar a este hombre espantoso y despreciable y su destino. Las fuerzas militares polacas y lituanas no pudieron evitar que su traición sobreviviera. Los hercúleos esfuerzos de los ecumenistas de hoy por continuar con su legado terminarán igualmente en la ignominia y la vergüenza que cayó sobre él. Y si la sangre gotea de su corona, la hipocresía fluirá de las guirnaldas mal concebidas que esperan ganar al cortejar, en nombre de la Fe, a los que han sido sus enemigos. 

Notas finales 
1. M. Healy, The Ancient Assyrians (Londres: Osprey, 1991), págs. 8-9. 2. N. Zernov, Eastern Christendom (Nueva York. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1961), págs. 147-148. 3. Diácono H. Ivanov-Treenadzaty, "El Vaticano y Rusia", Orthodox Life, marzo-abril de 1990, págs. 8-24. 4. N. Zernov, The Russians and their Church (Londres: S.P.C.K, 19,54), p. 87. El Sr. Maas es un converso uniato a la fe ortodoxa. De la tradición ortodoxa, vol. XI, núm. 3, págs. 48-50.

jueves, 12 de noviembre de 2020

Uniatism: The Trojan Horse of Papism - El Uniatismo: El Caballo de Troya del Papismo




ENGLISH:

The Unia:The Trojan Horse of Papism

By Archim. Gen. Raptopoulos

From the book "Papism and early fighters of Orthodoxy" 2nd Issue
Orthodox Brotherhood of Saint Xeni

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you dressed in sheepskins, while within they are wolves" (Mark 6:15)

What is the meaning of this word, Unia? This word is Polish meaning union. So, the one that belongs to Unia is called Uniate. Every Uniate has his life's purpose to draw the Orthodox Christians to the falsehoods of Papism. If however this is what a lay Uniate wishes, that much more does the Uniate clergy.
With great yearning the Pope seeks to subordinate the Orthodox under his jurisdiction. To his falsehoods. He wishes that he become the head of all the Church. This yearning he had for a very long time. Since the 6th century. Since then. He has a yearning especially since he officially separated from the Orthodox Church in 1054. Since then!! And what didn't he try to succeed in his goal! But he succeeded in nothing. So in his embarrassment in what he should have done better and more effectively, for this he created the Unia.
The beginning of the Unia was founded at the Laterno Synod of 1215 and in the Bull of Pope Innocente 4th . Nevertheless, officially and somehow, the Unia was created in Poland by two Jesuits, Possevin and Skarga. These two monks put in place the Unia in Poland. And this to latinize the Orthodox of Poland and of south-west Russia. In this they were helped by the king of Poland, Sigismundus 3rd who was brought up by the two Jesuits until his 21st year of age.
Under the protection of Sigismundus 3rd, the two Jesuits officially set up on their satanic task. In 1587 the two Jesuits cooperated to induce the king of Poland to call the Synod at Brest in Lithuania with president the Archbishop of Kiev. The topic? The union of the Orthodox with the Papist Church. The result? Substantially nothing.
So, a second Synod was called again at Brest on Dec 2, 1594. In this the primacy of the Pope and the Filioque were recognized. This pleased the Pope. In fact two bishops were sent to Rome to declare officially the decision of the Synod to Pope Clemente 8th. However the union was not realized. For this reason the Polish king ordered in 1596 to reconvene the Synod at Brest, to officially declare the union with Rome.

And what happened?
The archbishop of Kiev with other hierarchs declared the union, but the people reacted. Clerics, aristocrats and the public led by Constantine Ostrogoski, publicly protested. They disapproved the events and declared their devotion to the early Church and to the Patriarch of Constantinople. A tragic history was then unleashed. A story that uncovered the true meaning of the Unia.

Thus the Unia is the: "Trojan Horse."
The unia looks different to what it actually is. It appears Orthodox, and why? The Unia clerics, the Uniates are dressed like the Orthodox clerics. They wear the rasa and the kalamanka. They have beards. Total appearance of an Orthodox cleric. Their Churches are in everything Orthodox. They lack those cold statues, that give the appearance and the feeling of an idolatric temple. Instead of statues they have icons. And the whole structure of the Church, inside and outside is Orthodox. The divine liturgy is performed in every language of each country in which it exists and always acts in a proselytizing manner. The same divine liturgy. No simple Orthodox Christian could suspect anything different from Orthodoxy. This way our simple Christians could be advised by Uniates priests and worship in Uniate Churches.
All these constitute the Trojan horse. It is the sheepskin. Inside the Trojan horse hide the men of the Pope. The fanatic Latins hide inside, whose goal is to subordinate every Orthodox to the Pope. To latinize them. To murder the Orthodox faith, the only true faith. Under the nice sheepskin hide wolves. And those wolves are the mortal enemies of Orthodoxy. They are the camouflaged Frankish priests. They are as they are called in the 1989/24-3-1907 encyclical of the Patriarch Joakim 3rd "wolves in the form of sheep". Wolves that we must beware as we were forewarned by our Lord Himself. Who doesn't remember His words? "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, inside though they are wolves (Matt 6:15). They are wolves and you understand this when you hear them during liturgy commemorating the Pope of Rome. Him, that breathes abysmal hatred against the Orthodox. Him, who as we shall see is guilty of everything evil.

Force
The Uniates, crafty men of the Pope, use this as a means to proselytize Orthodox Christians to the falsehoods of Papism. They use the Trojan horse. They use the sheepskin. They use the "camouflage." They use craftiness and deceit. However, if these means do not prove adequate, then they revert to the use of force. With a thousand and two ways they force the Orthodox to worship the Pope.
There are three recent characteristic occasions, that have happened in cities of Slovakia which the Director of the Holy Synod Publication, John Hatziphotis, reveals with specific introduction.

The First Event
In the city of Mihalovce, the Uniates applied psychological and physical force on the Orthodox bishop John. They took over his Church and the Bishopric and forced him to move with all his bishopric to an old tavern. Groups of Uniate monks cut off the water, fuel and electricity, thus destroying his electronic equipment that were at the Bishopric. The same Bishop John, suffered a heart attack and was transferred to the Branov Hospital.

Second Event
In the city of Medgilaborce on 23-10-1991, the Uniates with a following of 80 policemen entered the Orthodox Church and removed all the Orthodox icons.

Third Event
In the city of Stropkov on 11 January 1992, the Uniates and Roman Catholics together started to destroy the house of the Orthodox priest, where in a room was a small Church used by the parish. They destroyed the roof, cut off the electricity and telephone and finally they evicted the priest, who now performed the services in a small wooden house, where the faithful brought some icons, which they guarded carefully so that the Uniates wouldn't take them and burn them.

The Slaughter and Executions
Which slaughter and executions should we first report? And from when shall we start? This though we say: The Unia drips blood. Blood from so many of her innumerable victims who refused to worship the Pope and accept his falsehoods. But let us note some typical bloody events that shame the Unia of the Pope.

In Poland
The first blood was poured by the Unia in Poland and south -west Russia. The Polish king Sigismundus through the prompting of the two Jesuits, Possevin and Skarga, founders of the Unia, in Poland in 1587, when he realized that through the pseudo-synods of Brest in Lithuania, he accomplished basically nothing, he declared in 1596, the persecution of the Orthodox who refused to surrender to the Pope. A river of blood was poured by this persecution. The representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople Archimandrite Nikiphoros was arrested and thrown in prison where he died of hunger. The representative of the Patriarchate of Alexandria to Poland, Kyrill Lukaris and later Patriarch of Alexandria, just managed to escape and thus avoid imprisonment and death. In this persecution therefore, the first one that Sigismundus declared with the prompting of the Uniates, some Orthodox were murdered, others were exiled and others were tortured. All the Churches and holy monasteries of the Orthodox were turned over to the Uniates. The Unia then had destructive intentions for all the Orthodox in Poland and south-west Russia.
It is characteristic the description of the ever memorable Metropolitan Germanus of Thyatera on this persecution. "From the Orthodox some were expelled, some had their arms and legs smashed, others were bayoneted and others were killed at the stake, while the women had their breasts cut off while their children were burnt on skewers.

Czecoslovakia
When the communists took over Czechoslovakia, the Papist Uniates found then the opportunity to attack the Orthodox Christians with awesome savagery. Let us hear the Metropolitan Dorotheos of Prague and all Czechoslovakia, describe the vandalisms by the Uniates in the following areas.
1. Litmanova, in the area Star- Loumbova: The Church was destroyed and a concerted and systematic persecution was unleashed on the Orthodox.
2. Klenova, in the area of Houmene: Durung the Pascha of 1969, the Uniates fired at the Church.
3. Stopkov, in the area of Svintik: The Uniates destroyed the Church. They climbed on the bell steeple and broke off the Orthodox triple Cross. They brought down the priest's house and threw his furniture on the street and destroyed it.
4. Tsekov, in the area of Trembosov: They took over the Church by force during the Divine Liturgy. The priest performing the Liturgy was beaten up so badly that he needed long hospital care. And this was the least. The worst was that the priest did not manage to complete the Divine Liturgy.
5. Malee Zalouzitce, in the area of Mihalovce: In this village there were 42 Orthodox and 28 Uniate families. The Uniates and the Catholics gathered 3000 followers from the county to destroy the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox defended their Church and protect it from desecration, but lots of blood was spilled. Even though a lot of Orthodox blood was spilled and covered the road and the Church compound, it did not stop the Uniate "priests" from stepping in and entering the Church of the Orthodox, to perform their Liturgy.
6. At Kousmitce, in the area of Trembisov: The Church was destroyed, the priest was severely beaten by the fanatical Uniates. They beat him mercilessly and with no pity, and was then sent to the city. At the same time the Uniates were shouting to hang him!

The Metropolitan of Prague vainly protested to the Vatican. The Vatican kept quiet. What could it say since it created the Unia and since it blesses its crimes in the Orthodox countries? And the Hierarch of Czechoslovakia noted: "The fact of the silence of the Vatican speaks for itself."

In Serbia.
Here in this country, as the Orthodox Press wrote in November of 1961, "the biggest slaughter of the Orthodox since the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ was executed for the benefit of Papism.

And who were the butchers?
Who else but the Papist Uniates? They are the specialist butchers of those who do not submit to the Franks but wish to die Orthodox. Thus the Papist Uniates, known as Ustasi, on April of 1941, after the overtaking of Jugoslavia by the Germans and Italians they acted as they wished. However it was the Vatican that ordered them to action. Their leader the infamous Ante Pavelitz, was named with the blessing of the Vatican and of Mussolini. So then, fully ready and allied with the Germans and Italians, they started their macabre task. They entered north-west Jugoslavia and they started the slaughter. Firstly with the priests. All the Orthodox priests of the area were rounded up, were tied with wires to temporary crosses and were then executed mainly by stoning. They then invited the Orthodox people to convert to Catholicism, under the threat of death. Then 800,000, from children of the first grade in elementary school to old people, gave one and only answer: "NO. We wish to die for the Orthodox faith of our ancestors". The Uniates then gave the signal for the general slaughter. 800,000 Orthodox were killed after great tortures. They died but did not succumb. They died but they did not become Catholics. They died but they did not worship the Pope. May the memory of these 800,000 Orthodox martyrs be eternal.

In Ukraine.
"In Ukraine the Uniates confiscated so many Orthodox Churches, that the Orthodox Church there had so few churches for her needs. The savagery and hatred of the Uniates against the Orthodox was expressed in various ways. We provide here one event. One day the Uniates arrested the Orthodox vicar who was earlier a Uniate and later returned to Orthodoxy. Revenging his return to Orthodoxy, these wolves in sheepskins took the Orthodox cleric and drowned him in the river."
Where is therefore the love of the Pope, of the Vatican, of the Roman Catholic Church when it commits so many crimes with her infamous Unia? What is the meaning of the famous theological dialogue, when the Pope continuous to maintain this detachment of death, the Unia? Let us not be deceived. The Pope wishes to subordinate the Orthodox to his falsehoods or to exterminate them.

--------
ESPAÑOL:

La Unia: el caballo de Troya del papismo 

Por Archim. Gen. Raptopoulos Del libro "El papismo y los primeros luchadores de la ortodoxia" 2do número Hermandad Ortodoxa de San Xeni 

"Cuidado con los falsos profetas, que vienen a ti vestidos con pieles de oveja, mientras que por dentro son lobos" (Marcos 6:15)

¿Cuál es el significado de esta palabra, Unia? Esta palabra en polaco significa unión. Entonces, el que pertenece a la Unia se llama Uniata. Cada uniata tiene en su vida el propósito de atraer a los cristianos ortodoxos a las falsedades del papismo. Sin embargo, si esto es lo que desea un laico uniata, mucho más lo desea el clero uniata. Con gran anhelo, el Papa busca subordinar a los ortodoxos bajo su jurisdicción. A sus falsedades. Quiere convertirse en cabeza de toda la Iglesia. Este anhelo lo tenía desde hace mucho tiempo. Desde el siglo VI. Desde entonces. Tiene un anhelo especialmente desde que se separó oficialmente de la Iglesia Ortodoxa en 1054. ¡¡Desde entonces !! ¡Y qué no intentó para lograr su objetivo! Pero no tuvo éxito en nada. Entonces, en su vergüenza por lo que debería haber hecho mejor y con mayor eficacia, creó la Unia. El inicio de la Unia se fundó en el Sínodo Laterno de 1215 y en la Bula del Papa Innocente IV. Sin embargo, oficialmente y de alguna manera, la Unia fue creada en Polonia por dos jesuitas, Possevin y Skarga. Estos dos monjes pusieron en marcha la Unia en Polonia. Y esto para latinizar a los ortodoxos de Polonia y del suroeste de Rusia. En esto fueron ayudados por el rey de Polonia, Segismundo III, quien fue criado por los dos jesuitas hasta los 21 años de edad. Bajo la protección de Sigismundo III, los dos jesuitas se establecieron oficialmente en su tarea satánica. En 1587 los dos jesuitas cooperaron para inducir al rey de Polonia a convocar el Sínodo en Brest en Lituania con el presidente el Arzobispo de Kiev. ¿El tema? La unión de los ortodoxos con la Iglesia papista. ¿El resultado? Sustancialmente nada. Entonces, un segundo Sínodo fue convocado nuevamente en Brest el 2 de diciembre de 1594. En este se reconoció el primado del Papa y del Filioque. Esto complació al Papa. De hecho, dos obispos fueron enviados a Roma para declarar oficialmente la decisión del Sínodo al Papa Clemente VIII. Sin embargo, la unión no se realizó. Por esta razón, el rey polaco ordenó en 1596 volver a convocar el Sínodo en Brest, para declarar oficialmente la unión con Roma.

¿Y que pasó? 
El arzobispo de Kiev con otros jerarcas declaró la unión, pero la gente reaccionó. Clérigos, aristócratas y el público dirigido por Constantine Ostrogoski protestaron públicamente. Desaprobaron los eventos y declararon su devoción a la Iglesia primitiva y al Patriarca de Constantinopla. Entonces se desató una trágica historia. Una historia que descubrió el verdadero significado de la Unia. 

Así, la Unia es el: "Caballo de Troya." La unia se ve diferente a lo que realmente es. Parece ortodoxo, ¿y por qué? Los clérigos de Unia, los uniatas, se visten como los clérigos ortodoxos. Llevan el rasa y el kalamanka. Tienen barbas. Apariencia total de un clérigo ortodoxo. Sus iglesias son en todo ortodoxas. Carecen de esas frías estatuas, que dan la apariencia y el sentimiento de un templo idolátrico. En lugar de estatuas, tienen iconos. Y toda la estructura de la Iglesia, por dentro y por fuera, es ortodoxa. La divina liturgia se realiza en todos los idiomas de cada país en el que existe y actúa siempre de manera proselitista. La misma liturgia divina. Ningún cristiano ortodoxo simple podría sospechar algo diferente de la ortodoxia. De esta manera nuestros cristianos simples podrían ser asesorados por sacerdotes uniatas y adorar en Iglesias Uniadas. Todos estos constituyen el caballo de Troya. Es la piel de oveja. Dentro del caballo de Troya se esconden los hombres del Papa. Los latinos fanáticos se esconden en su interior, cuyo objetivo es subordinar a todo ortodoxo al Papa. Para latinizarlos. Asesinar la fe ortodoxa, la única fe verdadera. Bajo la bonita piel de oveja se esconden lobos. Y esos lobos son los enemigos mortales de la ortodoxia. Son los sacerdotes francos camuflados. Son como se les llama en la encíclica 1989 / 24-3-1907 del Patriarca Joakim 3º "lobos en forma de oveja." Lobos que debemos tener cuidado ya que nuestro Señor mismo nos advirtió. ¿Quién no recuerda sus palabras? "Cuidado con los falsos profetas, que vienen a ti con piel de oveja, aunque por dentro son lobos (Mt 6,15). Son lobos y lo entiendes cuando los escuchas durante la liturgia conmemorativa del Papa de Roma. Él, que respira odio abismal contra los ortodoxos, él que, como veremos, es culpable de todo mal.

Fuerza 
Los uniatas, hombres astutos del Papa, utilizan esto como un medio para hacer proselitismo a los cristianos ortodoxos frente a las falsedades del papismo. Usan el caballo de Troya. Usan la piel de oveja. Usan el "camuflaje." Usan astucia y engaño. Sin embargo, si estos medios no resultan adecuados, vuelven al uso de la fuerza. De mil y dos formas obligan a los ortodoxos a adorar al Papa. Hay tres ocasiones características recientes, que han ocurrido en ciudades de Eslovaquia que el Director de la Publicación del Santo Sínodo, John Hatziphotis, revela con una introducción específica. 

Primer evento 
En la ciudad de Mihalovce, los Uniatas aplicaron fuerza psicológica y física sobre el obispo ortodoxo Juan. Se apoderaron de su Iglesia y del Obispado y lo obligaron a trasladarse con todo su obispado a una vieja taberna. Grupos de monjes uniatas cortaron el agua, el combustible y la electricidad, destruyendo así sus equipos electrónicos que estaban en el Obispado. El mismo obispo Juan, sufrió un infarto y fue trasladado al Hospital Branov. 

Segundo evento 
En la ciudad de Medgilaborce el 23-10-1991, los Uniatas con un seguimiento de 80 policías ingresaron a la Iglesia Ortodoxa y eliminaron todos los íconos ortodoxos.

Tercer evento 
En la ciudad de Stropkov, el 11 de enero de 1992, los uniatas y los católicos romanos juntos comenzaron a destruir la casa del sacerdote ortodoxo, donde en una habitación había una pequeña iglesia utilizada por la parroquia. Destruyeron el techo, cortaron la luz y el teléfono y finalmente desalojaron al sacerdote, que ahora realizaba los servicios en una casita de madera, donde los fieles traían unos iconos, que custodiaban con esmero para que los uniatas no se los llevaran y quemaran. 

La matanza y las ejecuciones ¿Qué matanzas y ejecuciones deberíamos informar primero? ¿Y desde cuando empezamos? Esto aunque decimos: La Unia gotea sangre. Sangre de tantas de sus innumerables víctimas que se negaron a adorar al Papa y aceptar sus falsedades. Pero notemos algunos hechos típicos sangrientos que avergüenzan a la Unia del Papa. 

En Polonia 
La Unia derramó la primera sangre en Polonia y el suroeste de Rusia. El rey polaco Segismundo a través del impulso de los dos jesuitas, Possevin y Skarga, fundadores de la Unia, en Polonia en 1587, cuando se dio cuenta de que a través de los pseudo-sínodos de Brest en Lituania, no logró básicamente nada, declaró en 1596, la persecución de los ortodoxos que se negaron a entregarse al Papa. Esta persecución derramó un río de sangre. El representante del Patriarcado de Constantinopla Archimandrita Nikiphoros fue arrestado y encarcelado donde murió de hambre. El representante del Patriarcado de Alejandría en Polonia, Kyrill Lukaris y más tarde Patriarca de Alejandría, apenas logró escapar y así evitar el encarcelamiento y la muerte. Por lo tanto, en esta persecución, la primera que declaró Segismundo con el impulso de los uniatas, algunos ortodoxos fueron asesinados, otros exiliados y otros torturados. Todas las iglesias y santos monasterios de los ortodoxos fueron entregados a los uniatas. La Unia tenía entonces intenciones destructivas para todos los ortodoxos de Polonia y el suroeste de Rusia. Es característica la descripción del siempre memorable Metropolitano Germanus de Thyatera sobre esta persecución. “De los ortodoxos algunos fueron expulsados, a algunos les aplastaron brazos y piernas, a otros les clavaron bayonetas y a otros los mataron en la hoguera, mientras que a las mujeres les cortaron los senos mientras a sus hijos los quemaron en brochetas.

Checoslovaquia 
Cuando los comunistas se apoderaron de Checoslovaquia, los uniatas papistas encontraron entonces la oportunidad de atacar a los cristianos ortodoxos con un salvajismo impresionante. Escuchemos al Metropolitano Dorotheos de Praga y de toda Checoslovaquia, describir los vandalismos de los Uniatas en las siguientes áreas. 1. Litmanova, en la zona de Star-Loumbova: La Iglesia fue destruida y se desató una persecución concertada y sistemática contra los ortodoxos. 2. Klenova, en el área de Houmene: Durante la Pascua de 1969, los Uniatas dispararon contra la Iglesia. 3. Stopkov, en el área de Svintik: Los Uniatas destruyeron la Iglesia. Subieron al campanario y rompieron la triple Cruz ortodoxa. Derribaron la casa del sacerdote, arrojaron sus muebles a la calle y la destruyeron. 4. Tsekov, en el área de Trembosov: Se apoderaron de la Iglesia por la fuerza durante la Divina Liturgia. El sacerdote que realizaba la liturgia fue golpeado de tal manera que necesitó atención hospitalaria prolongada. Y esto fue lo de menos. Lo peor fue que el sacerdote no logró completar la Divina Liturgia. 5. Malee Zalouzitce, en la zona de Mihalovce: en este pueblo había 42 familias ortodoxas y 28 uniatas. Los Uniatas y los Católicos reunieron a 3000 seguidores del condado para destruir la Iglesia Ortodoxa. Los ortodoxos defendieron su Iglesia y la protegieron de la profanación, pero se derramó mucha sangre. A pesar de que se derramó mucha sangre ortodoxa y cubrió el camino y el recinto de la Iglesia, eso no impidió que los "sacerdotes" uniatas intervinieran y entraran en la Iglesia de los Ortodoxos para realizar su liturgia. 6. En Kousmitce, en el área de Trembisov: La Iglesia fue destruida, el sacerdote fue brutalmente golpeado por los fanáticos Uniatas. Lo golpearon sin piedad y sin piedad, y luego fue enviado a la ciudad. ¡Al mismo tiempo, los Uniatas gritaban que lo colgaran! 

El metropolitano de Praga protestó en vano ante el Vaticano. El Vaticano guardó silencio. ¿Qué podría decir desde que creó la Unia y desde que bendice sus crímenes en los países ortodoxos? Y el Jerarca de Checoslovaquia señaló: "El hecho del silencio del Vaticano habla por sí mismo."

En Serbia. 
Aquí en este país, como escribió Orthodox Press en noviembre de 1961, "la mayor matanza de los ortodoxos desde la venida de nuestro Señor Jesucristo se llevó a cabo en beneficio del papismo."

¿Y quiénes eran los carniceros? 
¿Quién más que los papistas Uniatas? Son los carniceros especialistas de aquellos que no se someten a los francos sino que desean morir ortodoxos. Así, los Uniatas papistas, conocidos como Ustasi, en abril de 1941, después de que los alemanes e italianos tomaran a Yugoslavia, actuaron como quisieron. Sin embargo, fue el Vaticano quien les ordenó actuar. Su líder, el infame Ante Pavelitz, fue nombrado con la bendición del Vaticano y de Mussolini. Entonces, completamente preparados y aliados con los alemanes e italianos, comenzaron su macabra tarea. Entraron en el noroeste de Yugoslavia y comenzaron la matanza. Primero con los sacerdotes. Todos los sacerdotes ortodoxos de la zona fueron detenidos, atados con alambres a cruces temporales y luego ejecutados principalmente por lapidación. Luego invitaron al pueblo ortodoxo a convertirse al catolicismo, bajo amenaza de muerte. Entonces 800.000, desde niños de primer grado de primaria hasta ancianos, dieron una única respuesta: "NO. Queremos morir por la fe ortodoxa de nuestros antepasados." Los Uniatas luego dieron la señal para la masacre general. 800.000 ortodoxos fueron asesinados después de grandes torturas. Murieron pero no sucumbieron. Murieron pero no se hicieron católicos. Murieron pero no adoraron al Papa. Que la memoria de estos 800.000 mártires ortodoxos sea eterna.

En Ucrania. 
"En Ucrania, los Uniatas confiscaron tantas Iglesias Ortodoxas, que la Iglesia Ortodoxa tenía tan pocas iglesias para sus necesidades. El salvajismo y el odio de los Uniatas contra los Ortodoxos se expresaron de diversas maneras. Ofrecemos aquí un evento. Un día los Uniatas arrestaron al vicario ortodoxo que antes era uniata y luego regresó a la ortodoxia. Para vengarse de su regreso a la ortodoxia, estos lobos con pieles de oveja se llevaron al clérigo ortodoxo y lo ahogaron en el río." ¿Dónde está, pues, el amor del Papa, del Vaticano, de la Iglesia Católica Romana cuando comete tantos crímenes con su infame Unia? ¿Cuál es el sentido del famoso diálogo teológico, cuando el Papa sigue manteniendo este desprendimiento de muerte, la Unia? No nos dejemos engañar. El Papa desea subordinar a los ortodoxos a sus falsedades o exterminarlos.

+++


Are Roman Catholics Christians?

  Versión en español aquí:  Son los Cristianos los Católicos?