Make your own free website on Tripod.com
POPE OF ROME AND LIES OF LATINS

Home

FOREWORD
HERESY OF HERESIES
THE LANGUAGE OF BABYLON
WORKS OF DARKNESS
DIVIDING THE CHURCH
FOOD OF DEMONS
ECUMENICAL FRIENDSHIP
PRIESTHOOD OF WOMEN
HOLY RUSSIA
ROSICRUCIANS
PARISIAN SCHOOL
THEOLOGIAN IS ...
SOPHIAN HERESY
FALSIFICATIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
GLOBAL SERGIANISM
PROFANATION OF HOLY MYSTERIES
DARK SPIRITUALITY
CALENDAR REFORM
ALL-MOCKING HADES
POPE OF ROME AND LIES OF LATINS
VATICAN AND BABYLON
BALAMAND AGREEMENT
CHURCH IN DISTRESS!
MURDERERS IN GOD'S NAME
ALLIANCE IN FALSEHOOD
STEP BY STEP DEVIATION
DEMONS IN CASSOCKS
COUNCIL OF THE UNGODLY
PROPAGANDA OF THE SODOMITE SIN
THE DIVIDING WALLS
ORTHODOXY OR DEATH!
CHURCH OF THE WICKED
CONCLUDING REMARKS
ECUMENISM -- A PATH TO PERDITION

THE POPE OF ROME AND THE AGE-OLD LIES OF LATINS

"Roman Catholicism, -- says Dostoevsky, -- is even worse than atheism... All atheism does is preach a belief in nothing whereas Catholicism goes further; it preaches a distorted Christ, Whom it itself has slandered and profaned; it preaches the antithesis of Christ! It preaches Antichrist" [258].

Like the author of the well known work "The Vatican and Russia" [259] we wish to emphasize that our criticism of the Papacy by no means applies to ordinary pious Catholics whose ignorance has been for ages maintained by the Roman Curia. According to Alexei Khomyakov, "Catholicism has utterly defiled itself by lies, it needs the support of the predominant ignorance and counts on this general ignorance" [260].

Endeavoring to expose, at least to some extent, Vatican's ideology and being aware of the difficulty of this task, firstly with regard to Western readers who are accustomed to thinking in categories different from those in Orthodoxy, we are primarily concerned not about opinions in the time but about what "God thinks of us in the eternity" [261]. Therefore we dare to suggest to Western readers to "leave" the determination of preconceived ideas and to turn to the Orthodox way of thinking. The key to its understanding lies in the Orthodox attitude to humility, i.e. "the poverty of spirit" as "the mother of all virtues", passed on by Church Fathers.

It is well known that the Western Schism began with the willful distortion of the Creed by Rome when it added filioque to it despite the absolute prohibition of the Church to change anything in the Creed [262]. "The Western Schism is an arbitrary and completely undeserved excommunication of the entire East, the seizure of monopoly of Divine inspiration -- in a word -- a moral fratricide. Such is the meaning of the great heresy against the universality of the Church, the heresy which deprived faith of its moral foundation, and hence rendered faith impossible" [263]. (Is this not the reason for the skepticism and the lack of faith so characteristic of the masses in the West?)

The whole system of lies passed on from century to century false Decretalia (on which the theory of the Papal Supremacy was based), false deeds, deliberate distortions of Patristic works -- all this has left an indelible mark in the souls of Western Christians. According to A. Khomyakov who pondered a great deal over the tragedy of the Schism caused by Rome, "here lies the true source of moral damage and the true cause of a kind of fracture in the truth which in the Roman confession distort the brightest souls and disgrace the superior minds. One should not judge them too severely... falsehood like an iron chain encircled with its links the souls which were thirsting for truth", willy-nilly Roman Catholics "submitted to the sad necessity to distort the truth, if only to preserve their own positive faith and not to fall into Protestantism, i.e. not to be left with only a possibility or need for religion without any real substance" [264].

After falling away from the Ecumenical, i.e. Catholic (universal) Church, the Latin Church has unlawfully adopted the name of the "Catholic Church" [265]. By far not all Christians, particularly the non-Orthodox, brought up in the spirit of confessional indifference are aware of the centuries old errors of Rome which caused its falling away from the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Having sized up the essence of these errors one can understand why the idea (so persistently advocated by ecumenists) of a mechanistic reunification with the Roman Catholics is absolutely unacceptable for the true Orthodox Christians. Every true Orthodox Christian desires the reestablishment of the lost unity, but it is possible only under the condition of repentance of the Roman Catholics and the rejection of their dogmatic and other errors and heresies. In the words of St. Gregory the Theologian "we do not strive for victory, but for the return of brothers; parting with them torments us".

The Catholic Church has adopted from the pagan Roman Empire its spirit of law and taste for earthly power. Dostoevsky wrote: "The Pope has seized territories and an earthly throne, and took up the sword; this state of affairs has continued until now, except that lies, insinuations, deceit..., villainy... have been added to the sword... everything has been exchanged for money, for base earthly power. And is this not the teaching of Antichrist? How could atheism fail to come out of it all? Atheism proceeded from all this, from Roman Catholicism itself!" [266]. The dogma of "Infallibility" of the Roman Pope, discussed below, is the crown of all dogmatic, canonic, ecclesiological, moral and other heavy sins of Latins. The acceptance of blasphemous decrees of the First Vatican Council on Papal Vicegerency and Infallibility by those who called themselves Christians became possible only as the result of Rome's prolonged and resolute apostasy from Christ's teaching and Holy Tradition.

It already began in the 4th century when in 325 the Imperial Capital was moved to the border with Asia Minor, to Constantinople. This move was painful to Latins. Their wounded self-esteem began to manifest itself in lust for power of some Roman bishops.

The spirit of pride and temptations of vanity were increasingly taking hold of them, and from that time on almost all Local Councils had included the Roman problem in their agenda. Ecumenical Councils also devoted their attention to it, and the very fact of their convocation "is a strong enough witness against the far-fetched idea of the supremacy of the Roman bishop" [267]. Instead of "primacy in love" there appeared and grew the claim of juridical primacy and ecclesiastical supremacy of Rome. However, the ambitious pretensions of the Popes restrained by conciliar wisdom did not yet infringe upon the unity of the Church. It was rather strongly disturbed, although not yet violated, (undoubtedly for the reason of Church economia [268] neither by ritual, nor canonic divergences, like unleavened bread [269] used in the Eucharist, direct ordaining of deacons into the rank of bishops, celibacy, fasting on Saturdays, singing of "Alleluia" during Pascha, celebrating Divine Liturgy on fast days during the Great Lent, etc.

The reason for Latins falling away from the Catholic Church was the false teaching concerning the Holy Spirit emanating from the Father and the Son (ex Patre Filioque), based solely on the conclusion and zeal not according to reason, and which was elevated to the rank of dogma, and later also formally entered by Rome into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This heresy which became the cause of the Schism, was followed by others thus creating the gulf between Latins and Orthodox [270].

The following heretical innovations gradually took root in the Latin Church:

- The false teaching on the supremacy of the Roman Pope over the Church. After Rome's falling away from the Universal Church this teaching was taken to its extremes. This false teaching is inextricably bound with the dogma of the Infallibility of the Pope of Rome, which "leaves one horrified" [271].

- The heretical teaching on the emanation of the Holy Spirit "and from the Son" ("filioque") which distorted the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Under Pope Urban II (1088-1099), in 1098 at the Council in Bari (Italy) "filioque" was proclaimed a dogma.

- The Latin teaching concerning the original sin, which perverted the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Catholic Church. "Carried through to its logical conclusion it suggests that God Himself is the cause of evil in the world, i.e. it leads to an absurdity" [272].

- The false soteriological teaching on satisfying God for sins, which supplanted the moral understanding of man's salvation by the juridical one, and the related

- false teaching on the purgatory, the alleged intermediate stage between Paradise and hell, as well as the invented teachings of Rome on the "treasury of the extra merits of the Saints" and indulgences. The "accounts" of these two were at the disposal of the supreme ecclesiastical power, first of all the Pope. Initially indulgences were given as a reward for participation in Crusades. Later on and until now they have been given for price-listed donations, for repeating a certain prayer a specific number of times, for making a pilgrimage while observing certain rules, for using objects allegedly having a "conciliatory power". Indulgences precisely indicated the length of time by which the "suffering in purgatory" would be reduced: 40 days, 12 months, 100 years or more (the maximum period of time of a partial indulgence was 154,000 years) [273]. But can one measure the harm done by the invention and sale of indulgences which introduce financial considerations, profit and calculation in relations between God and man?! and when repentance and moral effort are replaced by casuistic morality? [274].

"The tragedy of Roman Catholicism lies not in the sins and personal transgressions of individual bishops of the Roman Church, personal sins abounded everywhere, -- but in the fact that the spirit of this world, the spirit of power, the spirit of juridical, utilitarian and worldly distortion of Divine mysteries was introduced into the very foundation of the Christian doctrine and of spiritual order of the Church. This spirit led to slavery the imprint of which resulted in the urge to translate the law of the life of Spirit into the language of an external, mechanistic calculation of merit, number and measure" [275]. Something irrevocable has been gradually taking place: the living love for God was being replaced by a hostile fear of a severe Creditor which led the West towards man's estrangement from the Creator.

- In 1854 the Papists accepted a false dogma of the "immaculate conception of the All-Holy Virgin Mary, i.e. of the alleged nonparticipation of the Mother of God in the original sin. Thus they once again departed from the teaching of the Holy Church which was confessed until then. According to St. Epiphany of Cyprus, "the harm is done by heresies both when the Holy Virgin is disparaged and, on the contrary -- when She is glorified beyond what is Her due" ("Panarion, against Collaridians").

This false teaching of Latins 1) does not correspond with the Holy Scriptures where reference is often made to Jesus Christ Alone being without sin (1 Tim. 2,5); 2) contradicts also Holy Tradition because the Fathers are in accord as to the high degree of holiness of the Virgin Mary from Her birth and Her purification by the Holy Spirit at the time She conceived Christ, but not at the time when She Herself was conceived by Anna; 3) is meaningless because if sinlessness of the Mother of God before Her birth were indispensable for the birth of Sinless Christ, then the same condition (i.e. sinlessness of Joachim and Anna) should apply also for Her own birth, and so on all the way up to Adam; 4) presents God as unmerciful and unjust because if God could protect Mary from sin and purify Her before She was born, why does He predetermine some to salvation without their will, while leaving others in sin? 5) actually denies all virtues of the Mother of God because if She was unable to commit sin, what made Her worthy of glorification by God? Thus the "gift" which She received from Pope Plus IX and from those who thought of glorifying Theotokos through discovery of new truths, meant Her denigration rather than Her exaltation and greater glory. The All-holy Virgin Mary was glorified by God Himself to such an extent and was so superior by Her life on earth and Her glory in Heaven that human fancies can add nothing to Her honor and glory" [276]. With these words Saint John concludes his reflections.

- The false dogma of the Resurrection and bodily ascension of the Virgin Mary also belongs to the so called "Marian dogmas" and was the logical consequence of the "Immaculate Conception". It was pronounced by Pope Pius XII in 1950. Both these teachings contradict Holy Tradition and Orthodox patristic theology (it does not contain an autonomous Mariology; the teaching concerning Mother of God is included in Christology).

- The Roman Catholic theology still refuses to acknowledge the self-existence of Divine energies in keeping with the Barlaamite heresy which was opposed by Saint Gregory Palamas.

- The false dogma of Papal Infallibility in the matter of "faith and morality", when they speak ex cathedra. It forms the basis of Latin dogmatics and, as we said above, crowns all the age-old errors of Rome. They all eventuated due to the loss of humility, the "poverty of spirit" and were the result of the pride of mind and preference for considerations which are human to those of divine origin. Latins have lost the mystical concept of the Church as the Body of Christ. It was replaced by rationalistic skepticism and false wisdom according to flesh. Humanistic anthropocentrism which flourished on the foundation of the Papism, had always aspired to depose faith in the God by faith in man. "The dogma of Infallibility of Pope who is a mere human is nothing else but the rebirth of paganism, of pagan axiology and criteria of truth... By this dogma European Humanism reached its ideal and idol -- Man was proclaimed supreme divinity, European humanistic Pantheon got its Zeuss... History of mankind, -- says Archimandrite Justin Popovich, knows of three main falls: those of Adam, of Judas and of Papism" [277].

In order to substantiate their claims to Papal preeminence in the Church Latins began resorting to arbitrary, tendentious interpretation of Holy Scripture. This concerns the imaginary supremacy of the Apostle Peter who is alleged to have passed his rights to the Bishop of Rome whom he ordained. This idea about the exclusive privileges of the Holy Apostle who, along with the Apostle Paul is called Preeminent is in contradiction with Holy Tradition: not one of the Church Fathers and teachers considered the Apostle Peter the head of the Apostles, even less the Vicar of Christ. The patristic interpretation of the Lord's words: "thou art Peter and on this rock I will build My Church" (Mt. 16,18) has nothing in common with the arbitrary invention of the Papists. Both Eastern and Western Fathers understood the "rock" as the steadfast faith of the Apostles, particularly the rock of faith professed by Saint Peter -- "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt. 16,16). According to Saint Hieronymus, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose of Milan and other Fathers on this rock of the confession of faith was founded the Holy Church. "God founded His Church on this rock, and from this rock the Apostle Peter received his name" (Saint Hieronymus, "Commentary to the Gospel by Matthew", Book VI).

The speech of the well known Roman Catholic Bishop Joseph G. Strossmayer on the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Roman Popes presented at the first Vatican Council (1870), deserves particular attention. Referring to the opinion of Saint Augustine which was shared by all Christians of his time, Strossmayer expressed the following theses:

- The Apostle Peter did not receive any exclusive authority from the Lord, by comparison with the other Apostles.

- The Holy Apostles never regarded Peter as the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the infallible teacher of the Church.

- The Holy Apostle Peter never was the Bishop of Rome, never thought of being a Pope, and never acted the way Popes do.

- The Councils of the first four centuries, while acknowledging the high position occupied by the Bishop of Rome in the Church in view of the importance of the city of Rome, accorded to him only preeminence of honor but never of authority, or jurisdiction.

- The famous words: "Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church" were never interpreted by Fathers as meaning that the Church was founded on Peter (super Petrum), but on the rock (super petram), i.e. on the Apostle's confession of faith.

Having cited these and other weighty arguments which are wholly in agreement with the Orthodox patristic teaching, Strossmayer said: "On the basis of data, reason, logic, common sense, and Christian conscience I solemnly conclude that Christ imparted no authority to Saint Peter and that the Bishops of Rome became the masters of the Church by gradually suppressing all rights of bishops one by one... If we acknowledge Pius IX to be infallible then we are obliged to acknowledge also the infallibility of all his predecessors... But can you do this when history makes it as clear as daylight, that popes were committing errors in their teaching? Can you do this and prove that the popes -- self-interested individuals, sexual perverts, murderers, simonists -- were Jesus Christ's vicars on earth?" [278]

There is no need to confirm the correctness of the words of this courageous authoritative Roman Catholic hierarch with regard to the Papacy, this basic heresy of the Latin Church [279]. It is well known that the discussion of "infallibility" by the participants of the First Vatican Council was rather stormy. Beside Strossmayer many other bishops opposed this dogma, especially Dupanloup and Gonolli. They cited the Universal Church as their authority and many examples of fallibility of various popes. Pope Pius' IX reply to one of the bishops was quite characteristic: "What are you afraid of? Pray to the Holy Spirit to enlighten you and to convince you of my infallibility" [280]. In spite of all the criticism, in 1870 the Council proclaimed the dogma of the Infallibility of the Popes on matters of "faith and morality" when they speak ex cathedra.

This is what the well known Decree of the First Vatican Council (IV Session, July 18, 1870) states: "Adhering firmly to the Tradition which we received from the beginning of Christian faith (sic!), to the glory of God our Savior, to the glorification of Catholic religion and for the good of Christian nations, in agreement with the Holy Council, we herewith teach and determine as the divinely revealed teaching (sic!) that when a Roman Pontiff (Romani pontificis) speaks from his throne (cum ex cathedra loquitur), i.e. when serving as a pastor and teacher of all Christians, he, by virtue of his supreme apostolic power (sic!) determines the doctrine of faith or morality (de fide vel moribus) to which the entire Church is bound to adhere; he, through the divine power promised to him in the person of Saint Peter, possesses the infallibility (infallibilitate), with which the Divine Savior deigned to endow His Church in order to determine the doctrine of faith and morality; hence, such decrees of the Roman Pontiff in themselves (ex sese), and not by the consent of the Church, are immutable. If, may the Lord forbid, anyone should dare to contradict this decree of ours, he will be anathematized" [281]. (our emphasis - L.P.)

The groundlessness of this dogma is proven by Church history which objectively testifies not only to the doctrinal errors of individual popes, but also to their obvious heresies. Suffice to remember Pope Liverius I who in 354 signed the Arian Creed [282], Pope Zosimas (417-418) who was inclined to the Pelagian heresy; Pope Vagilius (537-555) who thrice changed his opinion in the controversy of "three chapters" and who declared that "he had been the tool of Satan working towards the overthrow of the Church before the Lord enlightened him" [283]... Against Papal Infallibility testified also the examples of Pope Honorius I (625-638) who was condemned for his preaching the Monothelite heresy; of Pope Benedictus VIII who accepted "filioque"; Pope Sixtus V who threatened to anathematize anyone who would dare to change the text of the Vulgata amended and published by him and which was hurriedly withdrawn from circulation and destroyed by his successor Clement VIII because of the many (about 2000) errors it contained. The new amended edition had preserved the foreword by Sixtus with his threat of anathema; the ignorance of Pope Innocent III who ordered Christians to observe all the demands of the Deuteronomy. Of striking nature is also the example with the so called Syllabus of Errors, the list of main errors of the recent times which have to be anathematized. It was published in 1869 by Pope Plus IX. Among other things, anathema was due for confessing the freedom of conscience. At present, as we know, the freedom of conscience is an inalienable part of the official doctrine of the Vatican, i.e. Papacy is the subject to its own anathema.
We have cited here only a few instances of contradictions and absurdities which are bound with the role of popes as teachers and which are self-evident even for Roman Catholics themselves. One could quote a series of other examples proving the senselessness of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, as a "true theological distortion" [284].

One can judge how abominable the cult of "papolatry" [285] is, for instance, by the most well known book of Bishop of Laval, Professor Grand Seminaire, (Mgr. Bougaud) [286]. In this book which went through seven editions (one of the last editions came out in 1922) and which was used as a textbook by practically all seminarians before the Second World War and for some time after, the author goes as far as to maintain:

«If Christ is indeed present in the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist, is His presence there complete?.. Apparently not He is present, but He is mute... Blessed be God for leaving us not with His dead, so to say, presence, but the living, active one...

This other "half" of Christ is the one I am looking for in vain in the mute tabernacle... and what "half"!.. I almost said the most indispensable... After all, if the one whole "half" of Jesus Christ is not present in the Holy Eucharist, this means that it must be somewhere; it is in the Vatican, it is in the Pope!.. Here it is, the mystery of Christianity, this is the miracle of the REAL presence of the eternal Incarnation under two shrouds !.. That which Jesus Christ did not place under one of these shrouds He placed under the other; and one may have Him completely only if one knows how, in a fiery transport of heart, to move from the Eucharist to the Pope, and from the Pope to the Eucharist. Outside these two mysteries, which actually form one mystery, we have only the HUMBLED Jesus Christ (as He Himself has established), Who is inadequate for the needs of both the individual souls as well as society as a whole, Who is not in a position even to defend Himself... If one should eliminate the Pope, Jesus Christ will be incomplete in the Eucharist... Therefore the Church which is more sensitive to the things Divine than we are, does not even know how to speak of the Pope! No words seem to be too powerful to define the mutual penetration as a result of which its head is formed from both Jesus Christ and the Pope, and which is both visible and invisible at the same time... Oh sweet feelings one experiences before the tabernacle and at the feet of the Pope!..» [287]


This apology may seem to be incredible. "If today Roman Catholics will read this confession of faith with horror and amazement and will refuse to acknowledge it, although it belongs to our own times (1922) and was published with the approval of the Church censorship, it will not become less obvious that similar utterances became possible only in the light of the dogma of Papal Infallibility" [288].

The famous ex sese, i.e. the Papal right to make decisions personally, apart from the Council and without conciliar consent, conveys blasphemous conviction of Catholics that the Pope is de facto outside and above the Church. "Both in theory and in practice the Papacy is the fourth hierarchical rank (invented by the papacy and unknown to the Church - L.P.) thus completely abolishing the principle of the universality of the Church" [289]. After all, it is not for nothing that Mgr. Bougaud declares: "The Bishop receives wonderful qualities at his consecration... But there is one which is not granted to him: to teach infallibly. All bishops together possess it in not a greater degree than each one individually. Therefore they are obliged to bow before the Pope who alone has the general and infallible authority." [290]

Undoubtedly, in his book Mgr. Bougaud reflected the official Latin doctrine regarding the Pope. This is confirmed by the text concordant with Bougaud by which the Vatican informed the world about the election of Pope Pius XI in 1922: "How fortunate is Rome! It alone possesses both tabernacles: the Eucharistic one, in which Jesus Christ offers Himself to all hearts, and the Vatican, where Jesus by means of Papal utterances offers the Word of Truth, immutable and infallible." [291]

The Catholic dogma of the "infallibility" of the Roman Pontiff adopted over one hundred years ago, has remained in force until this day. The place of the invisible Head of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ, in the Latin Church was decisively usurped by the visible "vicarius Dei", "vicarius Christi". Instead of the invisible Spirit of God, which imparts life to the Church, Latins, in the person of the Pope, according to Alexei Khomyakov, have placed "the external oracle of truth in order to submit to him... We are faced with a pitiful sight... of the breakdown of faith in the Church". It is remarkable that the Second Vatican Council which loudly pronounced its unheard of renovationist decisions, did not dare to change, or what is more, to abolish this dogma. This Council which, according to one of the Roman hierarchs, emits "satanic fumes" (See the book of the same name by Michael de Saint-Pierre "Les fumées de satan") has confirmed all the age-old delusions and false teachings of Rome. According to the opinion of Catholics themselves it leads directly to apostasy [292].

[258] F. M. Dostoevsky, "Idiot", Pt. 4, Ch. 7.

[259] Germain Ivanoff-Trinadtzaty, "Vatikan i Rossija" (Vatican and Russia).
The first edition was published by the Brotherhood of St. Job of Pochaev, Diocese of Montreal and Canada of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Monastery Press, 8011 Champagneur Ave., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1989. In Russia this work was published by the Convent of Martha and Mary and the Brotherhood "Orthodox Action", Moscow, 1993 and then reprinted by various publishers.

[260] Quoted from: Germain Ivanoff-Trinadtzaty, "L'Eglise Russe face a l'Occident. O.E.I.L., Paris, 1991, p. 112. This book may become a true revelation to Western readers with regard to their understanding of Russia. Its Russian translation: Archdeacon Germain Ivanov-Trinadtzaty, "Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov litsom k Zapadu". Munich-Moscow, 1994.

[261] Vladimir Soloviev, Collected Works in 12 w. Bruxelles, 1969, v. 11, p. 92.

[262] Immutability of dogmatic definitions of faith is confirmed by the decrees of Ecumenical Councils which are the "supreme earthly authority of the Holy Church of Christ implemented through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as first stated by the Apostolic Council's decree: "for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us" (Acts 15, 28). ("The Law of God", Jordanville, 1987, p. 494). The 1st Rule of the Second Ecumenical Council reads: "Not to set aside the Faith... but to let it remain sovereign: and that every heresy be anathematized". This Rule is also confirmed by the Rules of Ecumenical Councils: 7th Rule of the Third, the 1st Rule of the Fourth, the 1st Rule of the Sixth, and the 1st Rule of the Seventh Council.

[263] A.S. Khomyakov, "Sochinenija bogoslovskija" (Theological Works), v. II, Ed. Yuri Samarin, Prague, 1867, p. 79.

[264] Ibid., p. 71.

[265] Traditionally, in Russia, the word "Church" was not used with regard to Latins, Protestants and others. Only in the Petersburg period of its history, probably due to the influence of their Western usage the terms "Catholic Church", "Lutheran Church", and in secular press even "Buddhist Church", "Moslem Church", etc. became current.

[266] F.M. Dostoevsky, "Idiot", Pt. IV, Ch.7.

[267] Archpriest Mitrofan (Znosko-Borovsky, now Bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad), "Pravoslavie, Rimo-katolichestvo, Protestantizm i Sektantstvo" (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Sectarianism. Lectures in comparative theology presented at the Holy Trinity Theological Seminary). Printing Press of St. Job of Pochaev, Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, N.Y. 1972, p. 23.

[268] The term is used to denote condescending attitude to a partial deviation from the strict canonic demands, if it benefits the flock and the Church.

[269] The irrelevance of Latin observances of Judaic customs was discussed by many. Thus, in 1053 such work was written by a prominent Bulgarian Archbishop Leo of Ochrid on the instructions of Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerullarius. In the 20th century, having pronounced the non-implication of Jews in Christ's Crucifixion and their continued "God-chosenness", the Papacy actually began to practice Judaism within Christianity, by openly calling on Catholics to prepare for the coming "Messianic times" together with Jews. One reads about this in such official Roman Catholic documents, as the declaration "Nostra aetate" (Vatican II) and "Pastoral Instructions" (1973), and by now customary numerous pronouncements of this kind found in abundance in Vatican publications and in the sympathetic mass media.

[270] The capital and well argumented work by Nicholas N. Voeikov "Tserkov', Rus' i Rim" (The Church, Russia and Rome), published by the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, N.Y., 1983, 512 pp., deals with the series of problems bound with Roman Catholicism. The unique quality of this well documented book lies in the new information from history of the ancient Church and the relations between Rome and the Ecumenical Church, drawn from the Western sources and never before published in Russian. With regard to the Latin Church see also: M.I. Koialovich, "Litovskaia Tserkovnaia unija" (Lithuanian Church Union), St. Petersburg, 1859-1861, w.1-2; P.N. Zhukovich, "Brestskii sobor 1596 goda" (The Council of Brest of 1596), St. Petersburg, 1907 and the above quoted works of Archdeacon Germain Ivanov-Trinadtzaty.

[271] Archpriest Mitrofan Znosko-Borovsky, op. cit. p. 44.

[272] Ibid., p. 30.

[273] Pope Paul VI in 1967 published "Indulgentiorum doctrina", according to which the correlation between indulgence and the period of time in the purgatory is no longer fixed.

[274] Pope John XII (955-964) had worked out a "special tariff of taxes for the remission of sins for the benefit of the "Apostolic Penitentiary" (Penitencerie Apostolique). Killing of a priest by a layman cost 7 groat, of a layman by layman -- 5 groat. Sins of the flesh became the most profitable source of income for the Roman Church for many centuries to come: remission of the sin of fornication committed by a priest was taxed in the amount of 67 francs, 11 sous, 6 denier; unnatural sins cost a priest 219 francs, 14 sous. The sin of adultery was assessed in the amount of 87 francs, 13 sous for a lay person of both sexes. Pope John XII was rather tolerant with regard to incest: this sin cost... only 40 sous". (These details are taken from the well known book by Dupin de Saint-Andre, "Les taxes de la Penitencerie Apostolique", published in 1520 and reprinted in 1741 in Rome, and again in 1879). Cited from N.N. Voeikov, "The Church, Russia, and Rome", pp. 56-57.

[275] Archpriest Mitrofan Znosko-Borovsky, op. cit., p. 48.

[276] Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, "Kak Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' chtila i chtit Bozhiju Mater'" (Veneration of the Mother of God by the Orthodox Church). In collection "The Chronicle of Veneration of Archbishop John (Maximovitch). Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, California, 1980, pp. 44-47.

[277] Archimandrite Justin Popovich, "Orthodox Church and Ecumenism", Moscow, 1993, pp. 95-96.

[278] Archbishop J.G. Strossmayer, "O namestnichestve i nepogreshimosti pap. Rech na I Vatikanskom Sobore 1870 goda" (About the Vicegerency and Infallibility of the Popes. Speech presented at the First Vatican Council in 1870.) The Russian translation of this document was first published in Tserkovnye Vedomosti for 1905, nos. 30 and 31. We quote from the Collection "Papstvo i ego borba s Pravoslaviem" (The Papacy and its Struggle with Orthodoxy), Moscow, 1993, pp. 26-30.

[279] According to Roman Cardinal Baronius, the Papal throne in the course of 150 years was occupied by "the monsters of villainous life, perverse disposition, in general the most infamous persons in all respects" (See "Pravda o namestnichestve i nepogreshimosti rimskikh pap" (The Truth about the Vicegerency and Infallibility of the Roman Popes), Kamenets-Podolsk, 1905, p. 16. About the deep immorality of Roman Pontiffs, bishops and clerics in the period preceding the failing away of Rome from the Ecumenical Church, the sacrileges and simony committed by them and their dissoluteness one can read in the Catholic Theological Encyclopedia. (See Dictionnaire de Thologie Catholique, Paris, 1939, v. IV, col. 2302)

[280] Cited from: N.N. Voeikov, "The Church, Russia and Rome", p. 190.

[281] Les Conciles Oecumniques. Tome II-2. "Les Decrets Trente a Vatican II" (the original text in Latin with the parallel translation into French). Les Editions Du Cerf, Paris, pp. 1658-1659 (816-817).

[282] Having made this step under the pressure of secular powers, Pope Liverius repented it and was later even canonized. Orthodox ecclesiology sees nothing unnatural in the fact that this future saint succumbed to human weakness. But how does one harmonize this case with Roman Catholic ecclesiology which postulates Infallibility of its Pontiffs?

[283] Cited from: Archpriest Mitrofan Znosko-Borovsky, op. cit., p. 47.

[284] See The Epistle of Eastern Patriarchs in 1895. Cited from: Germain Ivanoff-Trinadtzaty, "L'Eglise Russe face a l'Occident". O.E.I.L., Paris, 1991, p. 207.

[285] The term is used by Germain Ivanoff-Trinadtzaty and means the idolization of the Pope of Rome, op. cit. p. 238.

[286] Bougaud (Smile, eveque de Laval), Le christianisme et les temps presents. Tome IV "L'Eglise", Paris, Lib. Poussielgue freres, 1882.

[287] Bougaud, ibid. pp. 506-516 and ff.

[288] Archdeacon Germain Ivanoff-Trinadtzaty, "Russian Orthodox Church Facing the West", p. 238.

[289] Ibid. p. 237.

[290] Bougaud, ibid. p.47.

[291] Cited from Archpriest Mitrofan Znosko-Borovsky, op. cit. p. 36.

[292] See, for example, the book by Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre "Ils L'ont decouronne". Du liberalisme a l'apostasie. La tragedie conciliaire. Edition Fideliter, N.-D. du Pointet-Brout-Vernet. F. 03110 - Escurolles, 1987.