Sunday's Thoughts
by Alice-Alexandra-Sofia



The “Hierarchical Church”



Definition of the “Hierarchical Church”

The Great Schism and the Origin of the Papal Church of Rome

The Papacy

The Forbidden Chalice

Some Historical Details and Lessons

The Magisterium

Some Secular Affairs

Last Tribute to Thomas Aquinas

Conclusive Remarks





…Beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are plundering wolves…

{Matthew 7:15}

…ferocious wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock…

…among you men will rise up, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after themselves…

{Acts 20:29–30}






To exist, any system (empire, state, etc.) needs at least three forms of knowledge:

1/ the knowledge, which embodies the system’s meanings of the good and the evil, and which is accepted as the absolute truth – justification of existence, purposes, methods of operation and expansion

2/ the knowledge, which sustains the routine (daily, or ordinary life–sustaining) operations; this kind of knowledge is embodied into the political, social, commercial, and other organizations; it includes the sets of rules–laws, methods, and techniques, with which the system


operates – exercises its power

creates knowledge

acquires, distributes, and consumes the life–sustaining resources

maintains its stability–order

evolves – develops higher potency
and increases the sphere of own influence

achieves its purposes.


This knowledge is embodied into the subsystems: political, religious, social, business, and other organizations, structures, and institutions.

3/ the knowledge, with which the system attempts to defend own existence from internal and external enemies and threats. This knowledge, for instance, sustains intelligence and military operations; its embodiments include operational and military forces, armies, weapons, law–enforcing and controlling structures, etc. 

These three kinds of knowledge sustain hierarchical organizations, which accommodate, control, protect, and terminate physical existence of men; their source is a specific body of knowledge – philosophy, which is created within the framework provided by theology.

Two types of mutually exclusive and irreconcilable theological doctrines underlie all religions and cults and originate all philosophies: monotheism and heathenism.

Monotheism is the religion of one God, Who is the Absolute Good and Absolute Truth for His followers.

The heathenism has hierarchies of gods, starting with deified arch–dragon/serpent/beast, and including deified beasts, deified humans, and other kinds of idols created by human imagination. The Orphic serpentine theology*1* is known as the most comprehensive doctrine focused on the arch–evil/death; it accommodates almost all theological assumptions concerning man–made deities and underlies the majority of heathen religions and cults.

Existence and survival depends on the knowledge of the Absolute Truth; all theological and philosophical doctrines are centered on the specific meanings of the Absolute (which for some, is the Absolute Good, and for the others, might be the absolute evil, e.g., the cults of death). The meanings of good and evil differentiate religions and originate different visions of the main deity (deities), different concepts of man, different meanings of virtue, ethical and moral values, and purposes.

For the Christians, the Christian teachings stands above all knowledge, all systems, and all establishments of men – above all and everything:


it provides the knowledge of the Absolute Truth

it is comprehensive, unassailable, and unchangeable

it does not need and does not include other – inferior – kinds of knowledge

it is not compatible with the assumptions–symbols–worlds
created by other religious and philosophical doctrines.


The Christians do not create new theological knowledge. The Apostles and disciples of God were appointed to propagate the Gospels – the teachings given by God Himself (Galatians 1:11; Ephesians 1:1–23); they have not been appointed to create additions to it, to interpret it with imagination, to make any adjustments. The words of God written in the Gospels do not need interpretation with the philosophical doctrines or through other means of human reasoning: they convey the direct orders of God to His people – how to pray, how to give aims, how to care for the others, how to live decent life at the earth, how to prepare themselves for the Kingdom of God. The Christians are the brothers who have only one Teacher, Lord, and Master – Lord God Jesus Christ, and only one Father – God; the greatest among the brothers is the one who serves the others {e.g., Matthew 5:1–48; 6:1–34; 7:1–28; 10:16–42; 11:28–30; 18:1–35; 19:3–30; 22:17–21, 36–40; 23:1–11; 25:31–45; Luke 6:17–49; John 3:5–21; 4:23–24; 8:31–36, 51; 13:3–17; 14:1–27; 15:1–26; 16:1–15; 17:3}.

The Christian Church is a creation of Lord Jesus Christ – God, Creator, and Almighty Ruler of the Universe. The Christian Church is the world of God, the world created and ruled by God, and man–made things do not belong to this world. The Christian Church exists by the power of God and with God: she is opened into the infinite Eternity. She exists without limits and restriction of the temporal finite world, in which human beings have to learn the knowledge of evil and to be prepared for the Absolute Good, to pass through death of body and to inherit the life everlasting. The human soul–heart–mind worships God the Spirit in the spirit and truth, and the temple of God is built neither by the great might nor by the power of men. By the Holy Spirit of Almighty God, the temple of God is built: each human being is the dwelling–temple of the Living God – the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit of God unifies all His children into the Εκκλησια  – the brotherhood of free and equal children of God, the Holy Christian Church. The Christian Church unifies all followers of Lord God Jesus Christ – the living at the Earth now and those who came through the Earth before and reached their destination: there is no time–space–other borders and restriction, and there is no place for death in anything created by God {Matthew 16:21–26; John 1:1–5, 9–13; 3:3–8, 16–18; 4:23–24; 6:27, 35–58; 13:34; 14:1–6; 17:3; 18:36; Zachariah 4:6; 1 Corinthians 2:5; 3:19; 2 Corinthians 12:9; Ephesians 1:17–23; 2:14–22; 4:1–6; 5:14; 6:10–17; 1 John}.

The Christianity has the same structure ‘God–→God’s people,’ which was established when God chose the Israel to be His people, and which existed until the chosen people rebelled against God and requested to be ruled by king, so they would be similar to all other nations {Exodus 6:7; 19:5–6; 1 Kings 8:422}.

The Christian Church does not need political and other organizations and hierarchies, military or other protective systems; there cannot be any hierarchy within the Christian Church: hierarchies of men and the Church–Body of God are not compatible. There cannot be hierarchies of the power, authority, subordination and other inventions of men within the Christian Church, because the greatest among the brothers is the one who serves the others. The elders – bishops and priests – are the servants of God chosen to convey the truth, love, and knowledge of God to their brothers, and they are the servants of their brothers, because they convey them love and knowledge of God, which gives the eternal life. The knowledge of the words of God is the highest wisdom, and those who have it are seen as gods {John 10:34–38}.

So, the Christians/servants of God do not seek glory of men; they do not need dog–tags/labels with titles, high places, thrones, rituals of obeisance, or other signs of human pride and distinction. For the Christians, self–exaltation or adherence to honorary titles, degrees, and other inventions of men is abomination before God and before their conscience. Indeed, after Lord God Jesus Christ washed feet of His disciples and accepted the most humiliating, tormenting, and painful execution invented by the humans, which kind of human authority could be proper to those who desire to follow Him? Christianity is another universe incompatible with the evil and its offspring – slavery, which underlies the hierarchies based on the access to the coercive power. Yet, there is no power in the world of men capable to separate a human being from love of God–Creator. The wisdom of this world is foolishness and vanity before God; the wisest men of this world are not able to comprehend the Crucifixion and love of God, until the wisdom is given to them by God {e.g., Matthew 10:16–42; John 7:7; 10:27–38; 13:3–18; 18:36; 1 John 3:1–18; 4:4–5; 5:1–5, 10–13; Romans 8:1–39; 12:1–21; 1 Corinthians; 2 Corinthians; 1 Thessalonians; Hebrews, and other Epistles}.

Christianity is the world and the peace of God – it is another universe in which the earthly values have no meaning.

Although the Christians live within different states and societies with different political and social hierarchies, and although their physical behavior is bound by the laws of the earthly rulers and states, although the Christians might be slaves by body, they have the Spirit of God within and, therefore, freedom and love in the heart. Until the conscience follows the Law of God, until God is the only Master and Teacher of human soul–heart–mind, and until love to God and love to the others lives in the heart, the soul–heart–mind is free, whichever chains the body wears and in whichever prison the body has to live and to die {John 8:32–36; 1 Corinthians 3:16–23; 5:9–13; 6:14–20; 7:17–24; 2 Corinthians 3:17–18; Galatians 5:13–26; Hebrews 4:12–13; Romans 8:15–18; 13:1–14}.

There cannot be hierarchies, human exaltation, and absolute power in the Christian Church: God the Holy Spirit is everything and a human being is His temple. After Lord God Jesus Christ re–created the human nature through incarnation of the Holy Spirit of God by the human nature, through revelation of the love and knowledge of God the Father, and through transformation of man into the temple–dwelling of the Spirit of Living God, a human being received the power and authority to be a child of God. The world, in which a human being is the child of God, is ruled by love: God is the perfect Love, and this Love is the life and the only law for a human being redeemed by Lord Jesus Christ – the Son of God and the Son of man. The only vital – cohesive – power, which sustains human life as well as the love of the Christian Church, is love to God, love to other human beings, and love to all God’s creations. Nothing is able to deprive a human being of the love of God. Love is the essence of the Christian teachings, and the Omnipotent Almighty Love does not need hierarchies, weapons, military units, states, courts, and other inventions, with which men protect their worldly possessions and deprive other living creatures of their lives. Those who have no love and who murder the others dwell in death. Those who do not observe the teachings of God and who violate the Law of God, do not have right to identify themselves as the Christians, even if they mention the name of the Lord. The kingdom of God is not of this world; the kingdom of God is within man, and man is the dwelling–temple of the Living God {Matthew 7:21–23; 24:4–15; 26:51–53; Mark 13:5–6, 14; Luke 1:35; 12:49; 22:47–51; John 1:1–4, 12–13; 2:19–21; 3:3–8, 14–18; 9:1–41; 10:27–30; 13:34–35; 14:15–23; 15:1–17; 17:21–26; 18:11, 36–37; 1 John 3:1–10, 14–17; 4:6–21; Colossians 1:24; Ephesians 2:13–22; 1 Corinthians 3:16–23; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16–18; Romans 8:3–24, 35–39; Revelation 21:5}.

Therefore, any religious establishment, which deviates from the referred above definitions of the Christianity given in the New Testament and which does not follow literally the Christian teachings, must not be identified as the Christian Church. The Holy Scriptures reveal how God–Creator evaluates the human lawless hierarchies and murders of their rulers: there is no place for them in the presence of God, and the Kingdom of God is not of this world {Ezekiel 43:7–10; John 18:36–37}.

At the very moment when the Christian Church assumes that she might need the protection of the state or other establishments, or when she begins to intervene with political or other affairs of state, or when her elders begin to seek the authority other than the authority to convey the teachings of God and distribute aims, she transforms herself into the human establishment, therefore, ceases to be the creation of God: it keeps the appearance, yet, loses the essence – it becomes the place of desolation, which is run by the hired men and into which the false prophets–ferocious wolves come to deceive, to destroy, and to consume their victims {Matthew 24:4–5, 15; Mark 13:5–6; John 10:10–16}.



Definition of the “Hierarchical Church”


The referred above texts from the Holy Scriptures provide the foundation for analysis of such a phenomenon as “hierarchical church.”

Within the visible – material world, the Christian Church has two dimensions:

1) she is the invincible creation of God, His eternal kingdom that is opened for each human soul after Lord God Jesus Christ had reconciled man to God. The presence of God creates the Church: “where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them” {Matthew 18:20}. There is no power in the world, which is able to destroy the Christian Church or to force her into heresy, because God is her Creator and her life: she exists only with God, by the will of God, and for God. St. Paul the Apostle defines the Church as the Body of Christ {Colossians 1:24}. Each Christian professes the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” because the Church cannot be divided, dominated, influenced, or judged by men, even if such men are the popes or patriarchs: the Church of God does not descend at the level of man–made systems, under the power of the laws, which govern existence and survival of human establishments. The Christian Church is the indestructible establishment of God – the embodiment of the Absolute Truth of Christianity that has the dwelling within the Eternity, where God dwells. Within the temporal Universe, she opens a door to the Kingdom of God by giving the knowledge of the Word–God – Lord Jesus Christ: “I am the door… and the way, and the truth, and the life… no one comes to the Father but only through Me” and therefore, leading to God the Father {John 10:9; 14:6}

2) within the mankind’s world, the Christian Church exists as the community of believers – equal as equal are the sons of the same Father, unified with the mutual knowledge of truth and existing to accomplish the commandments of God – to propagate the Gospels, to make disciples of all nations, to accomplish works of charity, to teach, baptize, “feed and tend” the sheep of God. The Apostles’ descriptions of the purposes and operations of the Christian Church explain the name: Apostolic Church {Matthew 28:18–20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:44–47; John 21:15–17; 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and other Epistles}.

The phenomenon of the Desert Fathers illustrates the difference between two meanings of Church: the Church that embodies spirituality and preserves dignity of each human being and the church–establishment of men, which organizes people into the political–social structures and stipulates rules of their behavior. For example,

1/ there is no reference to the Church as a social or political establishment in the statement that “the hermits of the desert” (the Desert Fathers) saved the Eastern – Greek Orthodox Christian Church from “absorption into” the Byzantine Empire [Meyendorff 17–18]: the official Byzantine Church eventually became the part of the Byzantine Empire, while the Desert Fathers had neither social/political structure nor secular power

2/ when Ignatius of Loyola asserts that “the Church militants” (the papal subjects) must put aside their own judgments and see the white as the black if “the hierarchical Church so stipulates” [Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises §352–365; Personal Writings 356–358], he writes about the papal Church of Rome – the political establishment. This establishment, which accepts the definitions of truth according to the will of mortal man who claims the place of God and ascribes to own promulgations the status of the Law of God, cannot be the Christian Church – it is the establishment of the idol–worshipers who deify the mortal man. In this sense, Loyola’s Church confirms the fact that Christian Church of Rome ceased existence, and that what exists is the worldly establishment/organization referred further as “the papal Church of Rome.”

As a result of implementation of Aquinas’ political theology, and after the centuries of the struggle for the absolute secular and spiritual power over its subjects and especially, over those who do not wish to be its subjects, the papal Church of Rome developed into the political–social–religious establishment based on the unreserved obedience of the papal subjects to the pope. The papal establishment conditionally might be described as the threefold conglomerate: 



|    |

Core – the Controlling Center (the Papal Office)

|    |

Body, or The Hierarchy
(religious orders, priests, monks, nuns, laity, etc.)


The Cover consists from the remnants of the original Christian teachings: the wordings from the Scriptures, images bearing name of God, sign of the Crucifix, the cup in the hands of clergy, and references to the texts from the Holy Scriptures and traditional values and ideals of Christianity in the sermons and encyclicals. The papal “hierarchical church” employs the wordings of the Holy Scriptures to cover own deeds with the name of God, to refer to itself as to the church and to own subjects as to “the people of God,” to pretend on possession of the absolute power over the Christendom, and to claim the right to speak on behalf of the Christian Church. Consequently, the Cover has the great significance for the “hierarchical church,” because it

1/ serves as a center of attraction for those people and papal subjects  – the Catholics who believes in Lord God Jesus Christ and who are not able to discern behind the visible signs, soft words, and comforting images created by the papal theologians


a/ heresy

b/ ruthless practices of spiritual assassination, which, for instance,
include mandatory blasphemies against God prescribed by Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises,
deification of the pope, justification of maiming, torturing, and murder of men
for the sake of the common good of the papacy

c/ continuous struggle for the absolute power


2/ accommodates spiritual and psychological needs of the laity – the common pool of the human reserves from which the establishment extracts the means for own existence, servants and prospective members of the higher levels of the papal hierarchy

3/ accommodates the works of charity and maintains the appearance of Christian religion (buildings, signs, icons, order of worship, etc.).

The Core includes Aquinas’ political theology, scientia divina, and their derivatives, such as mystical theology – the worlds of delusion, dreams, and perverted imagination in which the members of the papal hierarchy

a/ become re–incarnations of St. Peter the Apostle, the prophets and saints, conquerors of the arc–evil, vicars of God, exceptional beings who by the grace of the papal office are standing on the place of God and having the share of His dignity, wives and brides of God, all–knowing and infallible teachers of humankind, supreme judges, universal shepherds, etc., etc., etc.

b/ are able to see God and to comprehend His nature, essence, and thoughts

c/ believe in own ability to bind God by own power and to act by the power of God even when they commit mortal sins against their subjects (e.g., belief in existence of such a phenomenon as “priests” in the state of mortal sin; belief in an ability of the head of the establishment, which struggles for the worldly power and sells forgiveness of sins for money (the indulgencies), “to stand at the place of God,” to have “a share of dignity of God,” and to act “by the power of Holy Trinity”).

Three ingredients compose the Core of the hierarchical church:

1/ the common pool of images, wordings, and misconceptions provided by the mythical and allegorical interpretations of the Scriptures; the images and misconceptions are used as the foothold for leaps of imagination; the wordings sustain appearance of the connection with the Christian teachings

2/ the working methods, such as the techniques of sensory and sensual stimulation accepted from the heathen diviners*2*; the diviners apply self–inflicted pain and bodily discomfort along with suppression of the natural mode of life for stimulating imagination and re–focusing existence from the actual world into the imaginary world*3*

3/ the theoretical and practical foundation of the controlling/managing subsystem, which conducts total surveillance and programming of the mind and conscience of the ordinary papal subjects as well as the creators and participants of the imaginary worlds – those who had rejected the natural mode of life and paid with own freedom of conscience, freedom of thinking, and freedom of choice for being a part of the papal hierarchy: monks, nuns, clergy, members of the religious orders (e.g., the Dominicans, the Jesuits), theologians, selected part of the laity–members of different papal orders and sects submitted to the papal authority.

The Controlling Center is the papal office – the conglomerate of the political/social/ideological structures – with such departments, for instance, as the Magisterium and the Holy Office – successor of the Inquisition*4*.

The papal office runs the entire establishment; it

a/ controls the conscience and thinking and influences life of approximately one billion Catholics of the different states and nations world–wide

b/ develops and implements the strategy of expansion of the papal influence and achievement of the absolute power (at present time – the latent period, apparently, mostly through the influence on the social, political, and cultural structures and establishments, which are controlled by the Catholics)

c/ accomplishes re–programming of the conscience and assassination of the souls (through the substitution of Aquinas’ political theology for Christianity, mandatory blasphemies against Lord God Jesus Christ prescribed by the spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola, cultivation of sacrilegious fantasies and beliefs promulgated by the papal diviners)

d/ accomplishes the perversion of the human nature (through suppression of the natural mode of life, corruption of imagination, mandatory blasphemies, and mandatory self–tortures and austerities, which result in mental and physical disorder)

e/ manufactures three kinds of unreservedly obedient servants for the papal hierarchy

            1. the diviners*2* maintain the mystical–theological part of the system through images and phantasms, visions and hallucinations presented as the divine or prophetic revelations (especially when they proclaim divine power of the pope or “confirm” the pope’s “absolute “power over human souls), and attract those who seek wisdom and understanding of the mysteries of God

            2. the theologians develop the ideological part of political theology, articles of the papal faith, and provide “theoretical” (based on heathen philosophy and doctrines of the papal theologians) justification of the papal claims

            3. the human weapon – “church militants” and members of different orders and laity; through the history of Western civilization, this kind of papal subjects is known as the Crusaders, inquisitors, assassins, and other executors of the papal policies and orders.

The ultimate purposes of the center include achievement of the global absolute power through subjugation of all Christian Churches and domination over the social, cultural, and political life of all states and nations of the world.

The Body, or the hierarchy, consists from the papal executives (recruits from the Jesuits and other papal orders who are armed with the imperial policies, methods, and values (elaborated during the centuries of the struggle for world dominion) and who had absorbed the outlook provided by Aquinas’ political theology, and other members of the hierarchy. All the members of the papal hierarchy are unified with one common feature – unreserved obedience and submission to the pope whom they worship as to the earthly substitute of God.

This three–fold establishment has several surfaces–names–appearances (e.g., the Vatican, the papal church of Rome, the Roman Catholic Church, the Catholicism) and the very effective design (if to judge by the scale of control and operations), which is based upon

a/ the absence of the state or national boundaries

b/ the belief in the right of deified head of the hierarchy to change the meanings of the good and the evil, therefore, to modify the morality, morals, and laws according to his needs or desires

c/ the official doctrine – Aquinas’ political theology – substantiated with heathen philosophy and covered with the wordings and terms borrowed from the Scriptures.

So, how the Christian Church of Rome ceased to exist, and why the papal Church of Rome – the establishment/organization based on the heathen political theology pretends on her place?                      



The Great Schism and Origin of the Papal Church of Rome


Christianity commenced with the horrifying execution of God–Man Lord Jesus Christ; it developed on the blood of countless martyrs, withstood persecutions and physical extermination of the Christians, and subdued the mighty inhumane heathen empire. Still, the fight for Christianity never ceased and obviously would not stop until the end of the times: the dividing sword of the Word–God {Matthew 10:34} makes impossible the peaceful comfortable co–existence of Christianity with the heathenism on which all human establishments developed. The main battlefield always is a human mind, where two forces collide into the mortal combat: the freedom of reality and truth granted by Christianity, and the slavery of imaginary worlds of false images and groundless fantasies supporting the inferno, which human beings created on the Earth.

So, how it happened that the hierarchical political organization, which is based on the worst that the heathen philosophy offers (e.g., Plato–Aristotle’s utopia, Aristotle’s political design, Aristotle’s universal slavery, sensual perception as the means to confirm the work of the intelligence, and the practicable material marketable good) has usurped the place of the Christian Church?

In the first–third centuries, the Church of Rome was overwhelmed with persecutions and murders of the Christians, including the Apostles and bishops of the Christian communities: St. Peter the Apostle was crucified, and St. Paul the Apostle was killed by sword according to the emperor Nero’s order [Paulus Orosius 299], in Rome, in 64(?). Some Christians began to incline toward the idea of invincible Church on the Earth, which would be able to protect her members from any persecution, or, as Hans Küng suggests, in her search for the safety, the Church of Rome had to strengthen her “constitutional framework” [Küng (1982) 16].

The harsh reality of existence suggested an earthly, yet, logical way to secure survival of the Church of Rome: to establish her as the invincible earthly empire. The heathen Roman Empire, which was at the zenith of her power, provided the only reliable pattern. Acceptance of this pattern for arrangement of the Church that would be invincible on the Earth became the crossroads, where the division into two irreconcilable systems – the papal Church of Rome and the Christian (which later began to be called Orthodox) Catholic Church started, and from where two different systems took the different ways.

Ancient Israel in her time rejected invisible, uncognizable, and unpredictable Almighty God, as her the only Ruler. She chose to have, as all other nations, a predictable and understandable earthly king who would be able to protect his subjects from the enemies and build the Future adequate to expectations of his subjects, yet, who could be manageable as any man can be. Likewise, the Bishops of Rome chose the earthly power to protect their Church, to make her invincible through the acts of men, and to make her capable of accommodating all earthly expectations of men. The moment, when such choice was made, the actual Schism – as a rejection of God as the only ruler and protector of His Church and as the only focus of human existence – began.  

When the Roman Bishops–popes accepted an idea of the invincible Church at the Earth, they simultaneously accepted the pattern of creation of the earthly empire after Aristotle’s political design, which was elaborated by the Romans for the multinational settings. The popes not only took the place of the Roman emperors and benefited from the experience of the Roman imperial state machine; they asserted the universal leadership as the Church’s main mission [Dvornik 108–109]. The

In the second century, the Church in Rome arranged by two Apostles of God – St. Peter and St. Paul, was recognized as maxima, antiquissima: the Episcopate of Rome became the main authority in questions of faith and purity of the Christian doctrine; it held the primacy of honor because it was established by two Apostles. However, the Councils, which included all Bishops, and not only the Bishop of Rome, governed life of the Christendom.

In the fourth century, with the expansion of Christianity, the Councils became Ecumenical (Universal, because they united the Christian Churches of the known/already discovered world–cosmos–universe). The Ecumenical Councils unified life of all Episcopates. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, in 325, referred to existence of the Episcopates in Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The First Council of Constantinople, in 381, recognized Constantinople as New Rome (in 330, Constantinople became a new capital of the Roman Empire) and honored the Bishop of Constantinople as the second after the Bishop of Rome [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 32; Conway 22]. In the fifth century, five major Episcopates – the Episcopates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem – became the Patriarchates; as the Pentarchy*5*, they collectively coordinated life of the entirety – the Universal Christian Church.

Then, also in the fifth century, the dissent within the Christendom became apparent: at first, between Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscor I (444–451) and the Roman pope Leo I (440–461), and later, after dethronement of Dioscor I, between the Roman pope and Patriarch of Constantinople. In 590, the 64th Roman pope – Gregory I (590–604) asserted the claim on papal absolutism [Trager 57].

The recognition of the superiority of the Church of Rome would justify concentration of all resources and power of the Universal Christian Church under the exclusive authority of the Roman pope. Consequently, the papacy began to claim the exceptional status: it declared that St. Peter the Apostle is the prince of all Apostles who alone possessed the special power and transferred this power only to his direct successor – the Roman pope and to the Roman pope alone.

The assertion of existence of the special power transferable only to the Roman popes shifted the understanding of the Church from the Sacramental Corpus Christi to the earthly sociological and juristic establishment with “social and corporational functions” – the “corpus mysticum with pope as its head” [Sherrard (1959) 88–90]. So, in the papal interpretation, the Church became “St. Peter’s estate” – the earthly estate, which, as any worldly possession, can be transferred to the heir.

The analogy of the Roman Church with the estate–subject of the imperial laws provided justification for introduction of the laws of the Roman Empire as the foundation for the Church’s policies and practices. The noteworthy (because of its absurdity from the Christian point of view) question discussed by the surrounding of the pope Boniface VIII, might illustrate the logical consequences of such “legalization”: “whether a jurist or theologian as supreme Pontiff, could better care for the souls of Christians” [Sherrard (1959) 90].

Christian Church already had the status of the establishment of God with the unprecedented power over destiny of men {Matthew 16:18–19}: she is above all earthly human affairs, establishments, creations, including political and social instruments, for instance, such as human laws and the structures responsible for their execution. It means that legalization of the Church of Christ was consistent with the papal claim on the role of the “supreme judge” of the world and with the Aquinas’ substitution of the legal justice of man for the righteousness of God. However, the very fact of application of the political and social terminology (vicar, policies, laws, estate) to the life of the Church illustrates that the Church in the Christian meaning ceased to exist. As Johann Sebastian von Drey explains, if the church’s authority is connected with the authority of man, the church is the “kind of state–church” because the social obligations asserted by men for other men make the state. The state–church ultimately would “dissolve into the state” because the Church cannot be the “human church”; the Church is institution of God [von Drey #234 108].

If to accept the words of God – the Gospels as the only criteria of judgment in all the matters concerning the Christian Church, it might be concluded that the existence of the Christian Church of Rome was terminated at the same moment, when the pope asserted his claims on the special authority and the special status, which would entitle him to the authority over other Churches and the world population. If the Church accepts such a ruler, it means that she had already disconnected herself from her the only Authority, Head, Ruler, and Source of existence – God, therefore, she ceased to exist as the Church of God and became the human establishment – the political organization.

In compliance with the Roman pattern, the next step should be deification of the ruler, and that is why the Great Schism entered the manifest stage.

The Great Schism is the crucial event in the history of Christianity.

In general, the schism does not refer to the Church as the establishment of God; it refers to the separation of the particular local Churches from the wholeness of the Christendom that embraces all Christians of the different states and nations. This separation is the consequence of two linked phenomena: intentional and obstinate heresy – misinterpretation and falsification of the words of God, and the substitution of the heathen philosophical doctrine for the Christian teachings.

The Great Schism resulted in the autonomous development of

– the papal church of Rome in the territories of West Roman Empire

– the Greek/Eastern Orthodox Churches in the territories of the East Roman Empire, in Asia Minor, and parts of North Africa.

The human intellect has one ultimate method to discern the truth and the good from the false and the evil in any concept, doctrine, and dogma: to judge by the results or by the consequences of their applications – by the fruits {Matthew 7:15–20; Luke 6:43–46}. Therefore, it is possible to identify the local Church, in which heresy became the basis for the policies and contacts with persons, other Churches, the states, and religious, political, and social establishments. The very process and the results of the Great Schism allows determination of

a/ the reasons, which have made possible origination of heresy within the local Church, or understanding why and how the system substitutes the alien constructions for its own absolute truth

b/ the consequences of heresy and their influence on survival of men and their establishments

c/ the pattern of transformation/destruction of the original system and construction of another system assembled with the remains (separated concepts, isolated passages, and selected/compiled wordings from the sacred texts) of the original system, which ceased existence after its absolute truth was superseded by the alien assumptions.

Unfortunately, in such fundamental life–defining and life–supporting matter as religion, researchers evaluate the historical events mostly from the biased point of view, which might be the consequence of researcher’s personal understanding of religion and its derivatives, e.g., such as personal philosophy, morals, ethics of investigation, priorities of the researcher. The genuine impartial comprehension might not be the first choice; so, different researchers offer different versions of the cause and nature of the Great Schism.

According to the historical version,

1/ the Schism began in the eighth century, as the split between the East Romans and the Franks who in the eighth–ninth centuries conquered the Western parts of the Roman Empire, took over the Church in Rome, her property, and the papacy itself, made the Roman pope a Franks’ vassal, and replaced the Roman Bishops with military leaders who – as St. Boniface cried – “shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans,” yet, presented themselves as the Christians [St. Boniface, ref. and qtd. in: Romanides 13; Romanides 10–31, 60–66, 70]

2/ the Franks (“the Franks” is the collective name of the European tribes: Franks, Germans, Normans, Goths, Lombards, etc.) established own – Frankish–German – papacy that triggered off the separation of four Greek Patriarchates from the conquered Rome. Irene, empress of the Eastern Roman Empire (Constantinople), refused to recognize Frankish leader Charlemagne (crowned in Rome in 800) as the Holy Roman Emperor [Trager 67–68]. The Franks began to name the Eastern Romans “the Greeks” and condemned them as heretics, who, according to Frankish emperor Louis II (855–875), deserted Rome as a capital and “abandoned Roman nationality and even the Latin language” [Louis II ref. and qtd. in: Romanides 18]. In fact, until the end of the second century, the Liturgy was in Greek; the Greek language was in use in the Church at Rome until the eight century [Scott 361]; so, it looks like the Romans deserted the Greek language – the original language of the Christianity

2/ the Frankish invasion divided the alloy of nations (that was the Roman Empire) into two parts:  the West Romans under the Frankish conquerors and the East Romans who became “the Greeks” or “the Byzantines.” The West Roman Church under the Franks accepted the Augustine’s theological doctrine, and her teaching became known as Catholicism. The Eastern/Greek Roman (or the Orthodox Catholic) Church, which remained independent from the Franks, ignored Manichean–Platonic–Gnostic–Augustine’s theological–philosophical speculations; her teaching is known as the Greek Orthodoxy. Barbarism and theological illiteracy of the Franks made possible the Crusades, the Inquisition, and scholastic theology. Weakening of the Franks’ positions at the conquered territories during the following centuries did not correct the Past: the “Frankish institution,” which became the Western Roman Church, was not changed because the Franks already had penetrated all hierarchy of the original Church of Rome [Romanides 18, 30, 65–66, 70, 80].

In summary, the historical version presents the Schism as the separation between

a/ the Franks, who conquered the part of Roman Empire, imposed own rules and own heresy unto the Roman Church on the conquered territories, and made her the “Frankish institution,” which produced the Catholicism and ultimately substituted heathen political theology for Christianity

b/ the original Roman Church, whose center was transferred in Constantinople (“New Rome”). The Constantinople’s Patriarchate unified the Christian population of the Roman Empire on the territories, which were not under the direct influence of the Franks. The Constantinople/Byzantium Church continued the Patristic traditions of the Orthodox Catholic Church and began to refer to herself as to the Greek (or the Eastern) Orthodox Church and, therefore, differentiated herself from the papal Church of Rome, which claimed the name of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, some historical facts make the historical version incomprehensive; for instance, the Church of Rome was established and developed within the already inhumane environment, and in 395, at least four centuries before the Schism, when the Roman Empire was divided into the West Roman Empire and the East Roman Empire, the Frankish influence was already significant [e.g., Trager 49]; thus, the Frankish influence existed before the Schism. Besides, it is not perfectly clear who was more barbarous –

– the “enlightened” Romans (initiated in the Greek philosophy and, especially, ideals of the Stoicism) who during centuries conquered, pillaged, and enslaved the population of the European territories


– the “illiterate” Franks, who, in spite of the superiority of the Rome’s military machine, had developed in the power, which conquered the significant part of the Roman Empire.

Other researchers argue that the political reasons determined the Great Schism [e.g., Scott 371; Runciman V].

According to A.P. Lebedev (Russia),  the Schism is the consequence of growing influence and power of the Roman popes and the papal claims on the absolute dominion and supremacy, which were not consistent with the interests of other Patriarchates [Lebedev (1997) 180–190, 200–213; (1999) 252].

In the interpretation of the Roman pope Leo XIII, the “principal subject of dissension is the primacy of the Roman Pontiff” [The Roman pope Leo XIII qt. from Praeclara Gratulationis, 1894, in: Sherrard (1978a) 115].

Some contemporary researchers name the continuing claims on the pope’s supremacy as the main reason for impossibility of reconciliation between the papal church of Rome and the Greek (Catholic Apostolic) Orthodox Church [e.g., Küng (1982) 201].

Historical events are the surface, the visible results of the invisible work of the mind. According to another researcher [Savitsky], the problem of the papal supremacy–domination–absolute power is just a peak of the mountain erected upon the specific foundation: falsification and misinterpretation of the word of God. Without this foundation, the claims on the papal supremacy would never exist, or at least vanish after deposition of the first pope–heretic who would dare to make such assertions. Therefore, the actual reason of the Great Schism is the difference in understanding of God, in the mutually incompatible theologies that sustain the different meanings of the good and the evil as well as the different patterns of thinking and behavior, purposes, policies, etc. If any basic assumption contains heresy, the heresy would penetrate the whole construction and produce the concepts objectionable for the others. As the result, the dogma of one Church becomes the heresy for another Church It is the different understanding of God that makes many fundamental assumptions and deeds of the papacy, as well as the whole the papal Church of Rome, unacceptable for the Greek Orthodoxy, especially,


the application of heathen philosophy and principally, Aristotelian logic and metaphysics,
to the comprehension and interpretation of the word of God

the allegorical and other methods interpretation borrowed by the papal theologians
from the pagan philosophers of Antiquity, Philo of Alexandria, and Origen,
which resulted in falsification and misinterpretation of the word of God
and substitution of the heathenism for  the Christian teachings

contamination by the heathen mythical and heretical
Philo–Origen–Augustine–Manichean–Gnostic–Stoic–Plato–Aristotelian concepts,
which became the rationale for the papal claims on supremacy over the Christendom
and the actual foundation of the papal Church of Rome

the Augustine’s assertion that the Holy Spirit proceeds “and from the Son” (“Filioque”),
which contradict the Christian dogma and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils

the concepts of supremacy, infallibility, and deification of the Roman pope

an assertion of the right of the papacy over the life and death of man

systematic violation of The Ten Commandments
and the Apostolic traditions,
especially, in dealing with heretics (the Inquisition).


In particular, the Augustine’s assertion (“Filioque” *6*: the Holy Spirit “proceedeth also from the Son... even as He proceedeth from the Father... He proceedeth at the same time from both” [Augustine Homilies on the Gospel of St. John XCIX.6–9, 383–384]) began the long history of the manifest discord between the East – the Greeks, and the West – the Latins. The Latins discarded the dogma postulated by the Universal Christian Church and discarded it intentionally, because there is no possibility to assume that ignorance of the Roman popes had reached such a degree that they had no knowledge about the main decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, which postulated and defined the Christian dogmas. In particular, the Ecumenical Councils issued the special decrees concerning ‘The Nicean Creed’ with intention to prevent heretical misinterpretation or modification of the main symbol of the Christian faith [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 65, 84–85, 87, 138–139; Romanides 66]:

1. Council of Ephesus (431) decreed that it is forbidden to compile the creed different from ‘The Nicean Creed’ and threatened with “anathema” (excommunication) those who would violate the Council’s decree

2. Council of Chalcedon (451) declared that ‘The Nicean Creed’ is sufficient for “a perfect understanding and establishment of religion”: the teaching about the Holy Trinity is compete because the Fathers of Church made the clarification about the Holy Spirit with the Scriptures; therefore, ‘The Creed’ must “remain inviolate”

3. Council of Chalcedon and the Fourth Council of Constantinople (the Eighth Ecumenical Council; 869–870) condemned as the heretics those who compose, promulgate, teach another creed, or make either any addition to or any subtraction from ‘The Nicean Creed’

4. with the references to Psalm 119, the Moses’ prohibition of additions to or subtractions from the word of God {Deuteronomy 12:32}, and to the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle {Galatians 1:9}, the Second Council of Nicea (787) ordered that for those with the “priestly dignity” the regulations of the sacred canons of the Ecumenical Synods (Ecumenical Councils) must “remain unshakeable and immoveable,” because they are enlightened by the Spirit of God.

In violation of the referred above decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, in 1014, the Roman pope Benedict VII included the Augustine’s assertion that the Holy Spirit proceeds “and from the Son” (“Filioque”) in ‘The Creed of the Roman Catholic Church.’

About two centuries after the Great Schism, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) of the papal church of Rome authorized ‘The Creed of the Roman Catholic Church’ with the Augustine–Benedict VII’s addition [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 232].

The papal Council of Trent accepted ‘The Creed of the Roman Catholic Church’ with the addition of Filioque as “the shield against all heresies” (4 February 1546, at Session 3) [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 662] (obviously, in the papal sense of heresy).

With legalization of the Augustine’s Filioque by the pope and by the councils of the papal Church of Rome, the heathen practice of modification of dogmas and deities was admitted to the Western theological studies: the papal Church of Rome accepted the permissibility of modification of the knowledge of God according to the words of man, and made it for the political and other worldly reasons. The Thomas Aquinas’ argument, with which he attempted to defeat the Greek Orthodoxy, discloses the actual significance of the Filioque for the papacy: in 1264, Aquinas referred to the rejection of supremacy of the Roman pope as to “analogous” to denial “that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son” [Thomas Aquinas’ Contra Errores Graecorum qtd. in: Likoudis 74–75].

The Augustine’s addition to the word of God was legalized because it provides an appearance of justification of the papal claims on


a/ the absolute authority over the world

b/ possession of the share of dignity of God and
the ability to stand at the place of God

c/ loyalty and unreserved obedience to the pope as
the necessary condition of eternal life and salvation

d/ such power to influence the post–mortem destiny of human soul
that even God has to obey the pope’s decisions
(that is plainly speaking, deification and positioning of the pope above God).



Understandably, the papacy eagerly accepted the Augustine’s heresy: from the earthly point of view (the strategy of achievement of the absolute power), the Augustine’s assertion of equality of the Son to the Father through making the Son the same source of the Holy Spirit as the Father is, was justified by transforming the self–proclaimed “vicar of Christ in the Earth” and “head of the Church” into the representative of the Omnipotent Almighty Absolute – the Holy Trinity. Then, such a representative logically claims a position of the absolute ruler

a/ that is the infallible source of the laws, which supersede the commandments and words of God

b/ whose definition of the vice and virtue is the binding law for the papal church and his subjects who are his unreserved slaves and whose conscience he can re–program with own meanings of good and evil

c/ that is the lawful heir of all completeness of all the power over the world – secular and spiritual, that possesses “the share of dignity” and “the place of God” and loyalty to whom becomes the necessary condition of the eternal salvation

Therefore, the value of the Augustine’s Filioque is the possibility to magnify the Roman pope. For the sake of this value, the popes manifestly rejected the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, although the Church tradition holds that through the Ecumenical Councils, the Holy Spirit of God speaks to the entire Christendom.

The Aquinas’ argument for the papacy confirms that

1/ in the struggle for the absolute power, nothing can stop the ambitions of those possessed with the lust for this power and those who serve such ambitions, even the fear to commit the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

2/ there is nothing sacred left for the theologian who serves the papal ambition, because with his assertion of analogy between God and the pope, Aquinas commits blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: he accepts the Augustine’s false statement about God and asserts existence of analogy between the properties of God and the pretense of man (the pope) on supremacy (according to the Aquinas’ own definition, blasphemy is the suggestion of something inappropriate or incompatible with God; to commit blasphemy means to ascribe the properties of God to His creations, to makes false statements about God, and to disparage the goodness of God [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica II–II Q.13 a1, a2, a3]).

The Filioque has made Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology possible and the Great Schism irreconcilable.

Some people perceive the dispute around the Filioque as the purely theoretical or scholastic subtlety without any practical influence on life of the Christians, yet, the Filioque revealed the work of the heathenism within that what was before the Christian Church of Rome. The heathen interactive theology (which allows modification of images of gods with the imagination and fantasies of men) sustained the papal struggle for the absolute power and world dominion, which triggered the Crusades, demanded establishment of the Inquisition, and transformed the history of European civilization into the list of massacres, religious wars, and atrocities. Therefore, the Augustine–papal Filioque had influenced lives of the millions.

To the contrary, some researchers attempt to assert the mutuality of the main dogmas and to prove that theological disagreement might be reconciled or even disregarded [e.g., Likoudis 9a–9b]. Usually, the papal hierarchy presents such a reconciliation as the unconditional submission of the Greek Orthodox Christians to the absolute authority of the Roman pope, therefore, conversion into Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology – Catholicism.

The main question is how to distinguish the truth from the heresy, and the association of heretics from the Christian Church. Today, as two millennia ago, the human intellect has only one ultimate method to discern truth and good from the false and evil in any concept, doctrine, and dogma: to judge by the consequences – by their fruits {Matthew 7:15–20; Luke 6:43–45}.

From such a point of view, for the Greek Orthodox Christian, the papacy and Catholicism are not acceptable. It is not St. Peter the Apostle, from whom the Greek Orthodox Church (that is the Orthodox Catholic Church) “cuts” herself off or is “fighting against” [Kydones qtd. in: Likoudis 40]. The distortion of the fundamental truth of Christianity, misinterpretation and falsification of the word of God, disparagement of the main commandment of God – the law of love {John 13:34–35, 15:12–13} had determined the deeds–fruits of the papal church of Rome, which made irreconcilable the papal faith (Catholicism) with the Greek Orthodoxy and deprived the Roman pope of any authority and trust in the matters of the Christian dogma.

For example, in 1204, when the Crusaders captured Constantinople, the Roman pope Innocent III expressed joy and called the capture “magnifica miracula” [Innocent III’s letter qtd. in: Runciman 151]. Some historians assert that the pope Innocent III was not aware of the details of sack of Constantinople [e.g., Runciman 151–152], or he just had “insensitivity to the Byzantine tradition” [La Due 122]. Historically, murders, pillage, destruction accompanied all military invasions, and it is not proper for the Christian to feel joy because of suffering and death of people and to continue to identify himself as the follower of Lord God Jesus Christ. The history preserved another example of joy experienced by another Roman pope: in 1572, after the St. Bartholomew’s Night in Paris, when the Catholics killed approximately 50,000 Huguenots, the pope Gregory XIII congratulated queen–mother Catherine de’ Medici and ordered to celebrate the massacre with lightening of bonfires [Trager 197]. Therefore, it looks as some kind of papal tradition or the special rite of papal worship: the papal subjects exterminate schismatics and heretics and plunder their wealth to make their superior–pope to feel joy and celebrate death of human beings created in the image and after likeness of God Whose place on the earth this superior pretends to have.

To illustrate the Constantinople’s story: the Crusaders–Catholics (led by the Venetian Doge and the princes from French and German royal houses) committed sacrilege, pillaged and ruined the holy Christian temples, murdered men, raped and killed children and women – the Greek Orthodox Christians, set on fire libraries, and plundered Churches, monasteries, houses. In fact, the entire European economy and financial system is founded on the plundered from the Byzantine wealth. Among the temple robbers was German clergyman and preacher Martin of Pairis “the pious Abbot,” whom the pope Innocent III encouraged to inspire the Crusaders. The other crimes committed in the temples of God by the Crusaders–Catholics are so despicable [e.g., in: Runciman 145, 149–151] that I am not able to mention them.

The response of the papal Council to the Greeks after sacrilege of the temples of God and sack of Constantinople was unambiguous: “comfort themselves like obedient sons” of the mother – “holy Roman church” [Canon 4 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) in: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 235–236]. Then, the Innocent III’s self–imposed mission “to reform the Universal Church” [Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III… 144] began with establishment of the Latin empire in Constantinople, on the ruins of the Christian temples of God.

Any political, religious, or other reasons cannot justify the committed evil or erase it from the memory. The Greek Orthodox Christians never considered retaliation for the atrocities of the papal subjects – to retaliate means to become the same kind of criminal. However, it must be admitted: the history confirms that the Catholics had received back, with the abound and running over measure {Luke 6:38} and through their own doing, everything they gave their victims, especially, through disintegration of the morality and loss of dignity of their superiors and shepherds, atrocities of the Inquisition, and acceptance of the Aquinas version of the heathenism – Aristotelian–Aquinas political theology. In the thirteenth century, the Catholic crusaders defiled the altars, shed blood of the Greek Christians, raped the children, and committed unspeakable crimes in the Christian temples in Constantinople; in the twenty–first century, the leprosy of heresy and of vice remains unhealed:

– in all Catholic churches under the papal jurisdiction still deprive the laity of the Eucharist with the life–giving Blood of Lord God Jesus Christ

– still there are the Catholic clergymen who rape children of the papal subjects in the papal churches.

(For example, the recent scandals widely publicized by the media revealed that some members of the papal hierarchy continue – using a contemporary euphemism – to “sexually abuse” children in the places they call “churches” and, nevertheless, they remain under the protection of their superiors and even some parishioners [e.g., Cooperman, Daly, McGrory, O’Toole, Powell, Williams and Cooperman].)

When human beings have no possibility to protect own life and dignity or the power to forgive the unforgivable, they appeal to God: God is the Supreme Judge and His is the vengeance {Genesis 18:25; Deuteronomy 32:35–36; Psalm 49(50):6; 93(94):1–2; Nahum 1:1–10; Romans 12:19; Hebrew 10:30–31}; the Hebrew Prophets describe the wrath of the judgment of God with the images, which make the Dante’s Inferno look as the house of toys.

However, would perfect and good God–Creator avenge the evil of men by killing the bodies of His creations or destroying their property, therefore, by using the same methods as men do? There is an assumption that the divine is beyond of vengefulness, it just reflects “like a mirror” the actions of men [St. Theognostos §47 in: The Philokalia 2:370].

It means that the evil–doers get back what they have done: many people hold the karmic beliefs. Yet, the perfection of God does not allow the suggestion that any contact might exist between the good and the evil, even reflection as in a mirror: “God is Light, and in Him there is no any darkness” {John 1:1–5; 11:46; 1 John 1:5} – the Light does not reflect the darkness.

The Word, or God–Son through Whom all things are made, has created the universal law of perfection that defines and maintains the nature of everything within the world, including the nature of man. God explained His disciples that He did not come to judge the world: His Word–Law will judge men at the last day. The text of Apocalypse and description given by Ezra the Prophet convey the meaning of the destructive power of the universal law: the Son of God pours a breath of flame, a stream of fire from His mouth, and this fire storm, or the Law of God, without effort, “by the means of the law,” destroys those who wage war against God. Another text of the Scriptures also clarifies the meaning of lawlessness: without God, only the weathered branches remain, which will be collected and put in fire {Matthew 5:17–18; John 5:22–24, 27, 30; 12:47–48; 15:6; Revelation 21:8}: the life of man is in God, and the human life is defined, controlled, and sustained by the Law of God.

If man discards the Law of God and commits evil, his soul becomes the void, and he undergoes a transformation into the moving matter or the living dead (the weathered branch), which, nevertheless, still is able to destroy the others before or during own self–disintegration. When the human mind conceives evil, it constructs own singularity – the void, where the universal law of perfection does not work. With each new evil thought, this singularity–void grows and gradually absorbs the mind–author. Such singularities (abnormality or perversion) are unnatural for the Universe controlled by the universal law – the will of God; thus, their self–annihilation along with their creators is the matter of time only: the death of sinners is evil, and their life is full of iniquities, wrong–doing, darkness, and perplexity {Psalm 33(34):21; Isaiah 59:2–10}: any perverted being who harbors evil and endangers the evolution inevitably activates self–termination.

In view of that, the worst kind of this something that is named “the vengeance of God” comes when men face the consequences of the force of destruction, which they unleashed against their brethren and which inevitably turns against those who deployed it. Perhaps, such phenomenon would have another name, not “vengeance,” because it is simply the work of the universal law that will operate until the Earth completes its mission. The law of vengeance or retribution is simple: the evil always comes back into the source of its origin and consumes those who unleashed it.

Although the Catholic Crusaders identified their inhumane crimes as the virtuous deeds committed for the sake of their god and their faith – Catholicism, they had to be removed from the face of the Earth as any other beings with the perverted nature. Consequently,

a/ an outbreak of the bubonic plague discontinued the Fourth Crusade; the survived participants of the Sixth Crusade brought in Europe leprosy of a body [Grun 169; Trager 104, 108] (in addition to the already acquired leprosy of the soul)

b/ from their loving mother – the papal church of Rome, the population of Europe got their own Crusaders [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 234] along with the Inquisition established by the pope Gregory IX in 1227

c/ the influx of Arabic translations of the Greek heathen philosophers and the works of Arabic philosophers, which assimilated and elaborated the mythological–theological–philosophical speculations of Plato and Aristotle, overwhelmed the last remnants of the original Christian dogma in the minds of the papal theologians.

Furthermore, the atrocities committed by the Catholics during eight Crusades in the eleventh–thirteenth centuries resulted in deep hostility and began animosity between the Catholics and the Muslims, at first at the territories conquered by the Crusaders, then, worldwide.

Before the Crusades, the Muslims referred to the Christians as to “the people of the Book” and recognized them as the followers of the same God of Abraham and his sons – Ishmael and Isaac.

After the convincible disclosure of the essence of the papal faith with the crimes of papal subjects, the Catholics and then, all Christians, tainted by the association with the Crusaders, became “the infidels” against whom the Muslims can wage the holy war.

This tragic (by its outcome) association of the Christian Faith with Catholicism and the papal Church of Rome is the consequence of three events:

1. the continuous misuse of the name of Lord God Jesus Christ for the cover–up of heathen  Aristotle–Aquinas political theology – the Catholicism or the papal faith

2. the papal claims on supremacy over the Universal Christian Church

3. the continuous pretense of the Roman pope to speak on behalf of the Christendom.

The history of West Europe reveals the other consequences, which the papal Church of Rome and the European nations–participants of the Crusades had drawn on themselves. The Germany’s way to Nazism (as the consequence of the loyal service to the papacy, and especially, the consequence of the papal virtue of unreserved obedience mandatory for the papal subjects) became inevitable. The other historical events also reveal that the force of destruction, which the papacy directed against the Byzantine (Greek) Orthodox Church, turned against those who employed it – against the papal Church of Rome and its subjects. For instance,

1/ corruption of faith and morality (that is the leprosy of the soul) had became the inheritance of the consequent generations and made possible


to substitute  political theology for Christianity

to unleash the Inquisition

to canonize Thomas Aquinas along with some of the inquisitors (e.g., Raymond of Peñafort)

to assert that those at the state of mortal sin can be the priests acting with the power of God

to sell forgiveness of sins for money (as the logical continuation of defilement
and plundering of the temples of God by assuming the right
to use His name for deceit and extortion


So, after the Catholic Crusaders expropriated things from the altars of the Greek Churches in Byzantium, they not only repeated the sacrilege of king Baltasar {Daniel 5:1–30}; they shared the Baltasar’s fate. The following generations of the pious abbots–robbers continued to crowd the road to the destruction with the pretense to possess the power of God and to have the right to extort money for the alleged use of this power [e.g., sale of indulgencies, also in: Luther].

2/ the devastation brought by the Inquisition, which suppressed development of the sciences and societies anywhere it operated; for instance, the Inquisition had exterminated even such devoted to the papacy religious order as the Knights Templar – the Crusaders and “guardians” of the Holy Land, who served the financial needs of the papacy and the Crusaders [La Due 142–143; Willett 90], although their heresy was not different from that what is the official doctrine of the papacy and the manner of life of its militants

3/ inhumane religious persecutions and wars waged by the papacy

4/ impediment of development of the European nations

5/ disgrace of the corrupted members of the papal clergy

6/ the Reformation, which made the schism the reality of the papal church of Rome and resulted in persecution of the Catholics by the population of the states, which rejected the papacy and the papal faith

7/ the ultimate destruction of the Holy Roman Empire

8/ the blindness of reason of those who having lost the ability to discern good and evil, nevertheless, pretend to be the substitutes for God, infallible judges, universal teachers, and preachers of Christianity, and, as the result, corrupt the faith and morality of their subjects, foster the crimes against humanity, deprive their subjects of God and lead them into the depth of ignorance and disgrace (for example, even establishment of the Vatican itself – as the restoration of at least some part of the papal secular status – have been done through Fascist dictator Mussolini; then, the cooperation with Nazism will never be erased from the true history of the papal church of Rome).

The history of post–Crusades Europe and the papal Church of Rome reveals also the pattern of destruction in the case of perversion of the human mature. In accordance with this pattern, the laws of disintegration work

1/ at the level of a human being – through the specific type of destruction of the immune system of body and those structures of mind responsible for self–preservation, which 

                        a/ make a body susceptible to the incurable mysterious and rare diseases such as leprosy, bubonic plague, unknown virus infections, instantaneous cancer, etc.

                        b/ make the mind susceptible to mass hysteria, and mental disorders, which lead to manifest or hidden insanity and transform human beings into the weapon of destruction – the living dead (the moving–breathing–killing–consuming–physically reproducing remnants of men: the living flesh with the dead conscience) or unreservedly obedient slaves who tolerate any crimes committed by their superiors, give up the Christian faith and freedom in exchange for imaginary heathen worlds and physical survival, and, consequently, become capable of any crime against God, humanity, and nature*7*

2/ at the level of human establishment/system – through the destruction of the foundation for survival, then, the main system’s properties, and ultimately, the system itself. The processes of destruction begin with substitution of the false (e.g., heathen Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology) for the absolute truth (e.g., Christian teaching) and results in

                        a/ perversion and misinterpretation of the purposes of existence; for instance, the papal church instead of spreading the teaching of Lord God Jesus Christ and the Gospel of love, truth, and freedom, begins to burn her subjects at the stake and recognize them as social animals–property and unreserved slaves of the papal hierarchy

                        b/ substitution of the evil for the good; this particular group of destructive actions results in loss of an ability to discern the good and the evil, and then, in complete moral corruption of members of the establishment; for instance,

– sexual and other crimes of those who took the vow of chastity and should pray about their brethren, not persecute and kill them and rape their children

– sale of forgiveness of sins and vacations from the purgatory, while – if to accept Dr. Martin Luther’s arguments [Luther The Ninety–Four Theses §84–85 17] – the vicar of God should imitate the mercy of God, therefore, the first thing he should do is to use his “mystic power” to release sinners from the Catholic purgatory (“discovered” by the Catholic theologians) and forgive their sins for free, without monetary remuneration

                        – expansion of the destructive processes; for instance, waging of the religious wars against another denominations and religious persecutions those who do not believe that their mind must be submitted to the papal control and their bodies, life, and property must be property of the papal hierarchy, and do not wish to become the papal subjects

                        – physical dissolution/destruction of the original system; for instance, the Western Schism and dissolution of the papal empire.

After the sacrilege, murders, and crimes, which the Catholics committed in Constantinople, the ways of the Greek Orthodox Church and the papal Church of Rome were separated; no hope was left for reconciliation. The Documents of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 preserved the complaints “On the Pride of Greeks towards Latins”: the papal Council admits that the Greeks “began to detest Latins” so apparently, that they even re–baptize those who had been baptized by the Catholic (Latin) priests, and treat as defiled the altars, were the Catholic priests had conducted their services [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 235]. The complaints reveal the trick, which later was successfully used in Nazi propaganda: to ascribe the victim the thoughts and deeds of the criminal*8*. The reason for these events was neither the pride of the Greeks nor their especial distaste for the Catholics: these events disclose that for the Greek Orthodox Christians, the papal Church of Rome ceased to be the Christian Church and became the servant of the evil.



The Papacy


According to the papal interpretation, the pope is the exclusive being, directly connected with God Himself – “the Vicar of Christ on the Earth,” who is not different from St. Peter the Apostle, as well as from Christ Himself, and who has the special power, which God granted to St. Peter only and which St. Peter transferred to the Roman pope only. However, the status of the Vicar of Christ (Who submitted Himself to the secular authorities to be crucified for sins of the world) obviously, did not satisfy the appetite for the authority and the image of the universal ruler, and the papal claim was coined more definitely: “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty” [Great Encyclical Letters 304 qtd. in: Baybrook 118]. As Gar Baybrook concludes: “This is deification, making a mere man equal with God” [Baybrook 118].

However, for a Christian, instead of the reverent trepidation, the papal claim to hold the place of God evokes the warning of St. Paul the Apostle about “the son of perdition” who would sit in the temple of God, “proclaiming himself to be God,” and extol himself over everything that people attribute to God {2 Thessalonians 2:3–4}.

In summary, the most significant papal claims, which are supposed to secure the complete secular and spiritual power of the pope, can be divided on three groups:

1/ the exclusive status of the Roman pope

2/ the supremacy or the right of dominion over the Universal Christian Church

3/ the right of dominion over the secular rulers.

The papal right of domination over the Christian Church includes the authority to convoke the General Church Council and to confirm the Council’s decisions. The right to confirm the decisions of the Church’s Councils, as well as some other papal intra– and inter–church privileges, has the only justification in so–called Pseudo–Isidorian or False Decretals – the forged collection of the enactments produced in the ninth century and confirmed to be unauthentic [e.g., Dulles 159].

In the twelfth century, monk Gratian compiled Decretals, which included 313 forgeries from the False Decretals. The Gratian’s Decretals became the main source of the canon laws of the papal hierarchy. In particular, the pope Gregory VII (1073–1085) justified the famous Dictates of Pope by the False Decretals. In the Dictates of Pope, Gregory VII claims that only the Roman pope might be called “universal” and he alone may depose emperors and absolve the ruler’s subjects from the oath of allegiance [Documents of the Christian Church 103; Küng (1982) 289–290; La Due 84–86, 100, 110].

Another example of the papal assertions based on the forged documents is the Constitutum ConstantiniDonation of Constantine – compiled in 750–760, which establishes the rank of the Roman pope as the equal to the rank of the Roman Emperor, grants the pope a right to wear the imperial regalia, and elevates the papal clergy at the rank of Roman senators (with the adequate privileges, of course) [Folz 10–12].

Obviously, for the papacy, the authenticity was not significant. As the pope Innocent III explained to the Bishop of Ely, if the genuineness of a decree is questionable but it is consistent with the common law, the judge should rely more on the authority of the common law than on the authenticity of the decree [Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III… 77].

 In justification of the claim to the superior position within the Pentarchy*5*  – five major Patriarchates, the papacy made the following assertions [Sherrard (1978a) 53–55, 58–61, 72–77], which also illustrate the process of deification of the pope and the process of construction of the papal establishment (from 1 through 3).

1/ St. Peter the Apostle appointed Clement, the third Bishop of Rome, as the St. Peter’s successor, and granted exclusively him the special power, which only St. Peter possessed. The Epistle of Clement, written in Greek presumably in the end of the second – early third century and translated in Latin in the late fourth century, provided ground for the assertion.

To the contrary, the Church in Rome is the foundation of two Apostles – St. Peter and St. Paul, who themselves were not the Bishops of Rome, therefore, the Bishop of Rome/pope cannot name himself the successor of St. Peter. Then, there is no confirmation – “specific or unambiguous testimony” – concerning the special power, which St. Peter handed over to the pope alone and not to all Christian Bishops. Moreover, such claim is inconsistent with the fundamental understanding of the Church as the presence of God among His creations: in the splendid temple with a Bishop, as well as in the cave of hermits with a humble priest–monk, the Church is the same Body of Christ, where neither earthly hierarchy nor earthly authority of men exists. Besides, there is no any specific confirmation in the Gospel and in the Apostles’ Epistles, which could justify the exclusiveness of the Church of Rome or the supremacy of its Bishop over all other churches. The claim on supremacy contradicts to the direct commandment of God: do not be as the Gentiles – the first and the greatest must be a servant to the others {Mark 10:35–45; Luke 22:24–30}.

Furthermore, St. John the Apostle writes about seven churches of God, and New Jerusalem has twelve foundations with twelve names of the twelve Apostles of God {Revelation 1:11–20; 21:14}.

Besides, there is no confirmation of authenticity of the Epistle of Clement.

In summary, there is neither confirmation nor proof for any claim on the papal superiority.

2/ As soon as each pope is the “direct successor of St. Peter” he (in accordance with the Roman law) inherits the “St. Peter’s estate” – the Church of Christ, and the “plenitude of power” given by Christ only to St. Peter. In similarity with the Roman law, which does not recognize the difference between the heir and the deceased, “there is no difference between pope, St. Peter, and Christ” [Sherrard (1978a) 55].

Indeed, the pope Nicolas I (858–867) believed that he is the reincarnation of St. Peter and began his letter with statement: “I Peter, the Apostle of God” [Nicolas I ref. and qtd. in: La Due 86]. To illustrate the pope Nicolas I’s knowledge of the Gospels and the Christian dogma, it should be sufficient to notice that Nicolas I contradicted the commandment of God that His disciples must baptize people “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” {Matthew 28:19}. In the pope Nicolas I’s interpretation of Christianity, “baptism in the name of Christ alone was quite sufficient” [Nicolas I qtd. in: Baybrook 281].

The referred above papal assertions disclose insufficient knowledge of the word of God, contradiction of the commandment of God, and acceptance of the heathen concept of reincarnation – that is heresy. They also reveal that, for the papacy, the Church – the Body of Christ – became the transferable material estate under the jurisdiction of Roman imperial laws: Roman soldiers crucified the Son of Man, and the Roman popes began to transfer His Body – the Church {Ephesians 1:15–23; 1 Colossians 1:24} – to one another as men transfer the material estate.

Evidently, the Great Schism had no alternative: for the Christian Church, the Pythagoras–Orphic–Plato–Stoic concept of reincarnation is the heathen concept, therefore, heresy. As soon as the head of the Church of Rome believes in reincarnation and contradicts the word of God he is a heretic. If the Church of Rome keeps the heretic as her supreme pontiff, such a church becomes the disseminator of heresy, without any authority in the matters of the Christian Faith.

If for the followers of other religions, the concept of reincarnation might denote the ability of soul to achieve its perfection through a sequence of re–births within new bodies, the Christians have only one life–time and one body – the unique chance to fulfill their mission and achieve their purpose of existence within the material world. And so important this one life is that God Himself came to the world to reconcile and save His creation: a Christian believes that only through Lord God Jesus Christ a human being obtains salvation and achieves the purpose of existence. Those beings that can attain perfection by a gradual rise to the Absolute Good through the cycles of reincarnation need neither Lord God Jesus Christ nor Christian faith. Therefore, if a Christian accepts the concept of reincarnation, he becomes the follower of another religion, which does not recognize the central dogma of Christianity. Consequently, his brethren consider him as a heretic and apostate: in the matters of faith, the fuzzy or multidimensional logic does not work and only one choice exists – yes or no, one religion or another. Therefore, self–presentation of the Roman pope as reincarnation of St. Peter the Apostle contradicts the very foundation of the Christian Faith. Perhaps, that is why Thomas Aquinas attempted to prove with the assistance of heathen philosophy that a “divine person” could accept the nature of many men, and all of them still would be the “one people.” Such an interpretation masks the traditional version of the Pythagoras–Plato’s concept of reincarnation by restricting possibility of reincarnation only for the “divine person” that also improves the ground for deification of the pope. However, even if the belief in papal reincarnation became the legitimate article of the papal faith, it does not mean that the belief in the re–incarnated popes might ever become the Christian dogma.

3/ The Church with the pope as her head “exists over and above all its members,” and significance of a human being depends on a status achieved within the papal church. Each person must be a subject to “the divinely appointed functionaries” and to the laws promulgated by them. There is no difference between the heresy and violation of these laws (the Roman Empire equated heresy to treason punishable by death). The good of any person is to serve “the community as a whole” against internal and external enemies; such a service becomes “both political obligation and divine command” (this notion facilitates understanding of the purposes behind such papal inventions as the Crusades, the Inquisition, execution of Joan d’Ark and Savanarola [Sherrard (1978) 61].

To legalize the supremacy over the Universal Church, the Roman popes elevated themselves at the level of God. The pattern of deification of the Roman pope coincides with the pattern of deification of a pagan emperor. The pope, as the “divinely appointed functionary” and the exclusive being not different from the Apostle and from God, asserts his authority to promulgate the laws. Consequently, violation of the papal laws becomes heresy: the freedom of the Law granted by God is superseded by slavery under the laws of the “divine functionary,” which receive the status compared only with the Law of God; then, also logically, disobedience to the pope and rejection of the papal supremacy become the mortal sins punishable by death.

The sacrilegious placement of the papal law at the level of the commandments of God and the consequent classification of disobedience to the pope as the mortal sin resulted in usurpation of the right over life and death of men; it also contributed into the foundation for the Inquisition, and the basis for justification the attempts to subdue the “disobedient” Christian Church and robbery and murder of the Greek “schismatics” – the Christians – in Constantinople, during the Fourth Crusade.                  

The absolute power over a human being is a subject of the desperate pursuit through all the history of mankind. With time, it was realized that the power over a human body is not enough: death became an ordinary and sometimes even desirable event, because it released the destitute and the afflicted from the inferno of the daily reality, thus freed them from their earthly masters. The power over a human soul appears as the only means to enslave a human being completely. The Egyptian priests and pharaohs were perhaps the first who attempted by the means of religion to transform the phantom of absolute power into the reality. They invented two peculiar beliefs: preservation of a body as the condition of eternal life of the soul and deification of the earthly ruler who had the power to allow preservation or to authorize destruction of his subject’s body, therefore, who could decide the eternal destiny of his subject’s soul. This invention became the essential article of the Egyptian religion and made unreserved obedience to the deified pharaoh the main condition of eternal life for the pharaoh’s subjects. Later, in the papal hierarchical church, the destiny of human soul was also correlated with the unreserved obedience to deified man (pope).

However, Christianity has no ground for such a convenient political belief. God warned His disciples that they must not be afraid of those who can destroy the body: God decides destiny of both – the body and the soul {Matthew 10:28–30}. Besides, in a strict sense, such thing as the “absolute power” of an ordinary mortal man within the temporal material world does not exist, because the meaning of absolute power includes the abilities, which exceed the potency of an ordinary human being:

a/ the power over the destiny of body and soul

b/ the power to give life and to take it away

c/ the power to prevent death of human being and
disintegration of human establishments

d/ the ability to control the forces of nature.

Thus, only God has the absolute power over His creations. Consequently, an application of the wording “absolute power” to the affairs of men is inappropriate. Nevertheless, the pursuit of absolute power became the main aspiration of the Roman popes who attempted to use the phantom of absolute power to extort the unreserved obedience of the papal subjects and to achieve the world domination: they began to claim absolute power over the post–mortal destiny of the soul.

For instance, according to Innocent III (1198–1216), the pope is positioned between God and man: “less than God but greater than man, judging all men and judged by none” [Innocent III qtd. in: La Due 119]

The assertion reminds the Philo’s misinterpretation of the Old Testament, when he describes his vision of the wise man who ceased to be man and became “something on the border” between God and man – “neither God nor man,” and then, makes the high priest not man but something of “the middle class” connected with “the immortal race by his virtue” [Philo of Alexandria On Dreams II, XXXIV.228–232; XXXV.234 404, 405].

The Innocent III’s self–appointment at the place of the supreme judge of mankind reveals that the place of the Plato’s divine philosopher or the Philo’s high priest is not enough: the pope’s ultimate target is the place of Almighty God–Father Who Himself is the Judge of the Earth and of the nations. Lord God Jesus Christ (Whose vicars on the Earth the popes claim to be) did not come to the Earth to judge the world and ruin the souls of men but to save them {Isaiah 33:22; Psalm 49(50):6; 93(94):1–2; Joel 3:12; Luke 9:54–56; John 12:47}; however, if the pope claims the place of God the Father, why the pope should imitate mercy of Christ and he cannot take the vacancy and himself become the supreme judge?

The same Innocent III proclaimed that the power of coercion belongs to the pope according to the words of God to the Prophet with the priestly ancestry {Jeremiah 1:1, 10}, whom God set over nations and kingdoms to pluck up, to destroy, and to overthrow, therefore transferred to “the single person of Christ’s Vicar” the right and responsibility to unify kingdom and priesthood [Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III… 65–66, 178]

If God sent His servant–Prophet with the special mission, it does not mean that each pope would have the same mission as Jeremiah the Prophet does. Contrary to the Aquinas’ fantasy, there is no such thing as “the grace of the papal office,” and the title does not make prophets and saints; just recall the popes deposed by the Council of Constance (1414–1418) for “detestable and dishonest life and morals” (John XXIII) and for perjury, heresy, and fostering schism (Benedict XIII) [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 417, 437].

From another point of view, the mentioned above deposed popes could assume the task to destroy and to overthrow the very idea of “divine” papal authority, yet, such interpretation of the papal stewardship does not seem to be consistent with the Innocent III’s assertions.

The pope Innocent III, the initiator of the Fourth Crusade during which the Catholic Crusaders pillaged and destroyed the Greek Orthodox temples in Constantinople, who raised the papacy’s authority and influence in the West Europe to the highest point, was the first pope to use and widely apply to himself the title of “vicar of Christ,” while he was concerned with the expansion of the Papal States and establishment of the papacy in the Byzantium, at the ruins of destroyed Christian temples. The comparison of Innocent III at the pick of his political, judicial, financial, and secular power with Napoleon Bonaparte [Barnes 364] one more time reveals the incompatibility of the papal empire with the Christian Church.

Innocent III concluded self–portrayal with the following statements:

1/ God appointed the pope to be “His Vicar on earth”; therefore, “as every knee is bowed to Jesus, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” in the same fashion all men must obey His Vicar – the pope

2/ the pope acts on behalf of the Holy Trinity, “by the authority of SS Peter and Paul, and by... own authority” [Innocent III ref. and qtd. in: Encyclopedia of the Vatican and Papacy 213–214; La Due 118, 124; Willett 11]. 

In July 1213, Innocent III sent to the kingdom of England his legate –“a very angel of peace and salvation,” to whom the pope, imitating God, transferred his own – the Innocent III’s – authority to “root out... build and plan... conformably with God’s will” [Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III… 177, 216, 150, 151, 154].

This assertion reveals that, in his mind, in addition to self–ascribed prophetic status, pope Innocent III considers himself as the deity who even has own “angel of peace and salvation” (that, obviously, is “of things in heaven”; unfortunately, Innocent III did not leave the names of those who served him from “under the earth,” especially when he initiated the Crusade and contemplated that what became the Inquisition) and his “own authority” from the unspecified source. Man, indeed, should have some non–human properties to mention his own authority next to the reference to the Holy Trinity and to send his own “angel” capable of realizing the will of God!

Innocent III’s self–deification had opened the gate for the flow of similar assertions, which ultimately formed the practical details of deification of the Roman pope. For instance, with the references to the mission of Jeremiah the Prophet (mentioned by Innocent III in the context of papal authority) and to the St. Paul’s “spiritual man” who judges/discerns all things, yet, whom nobody can judge/discern {1 Corinthians 2:15}, the pope Boniface VIII proclaimed that the papal authority is divine and for the sake of eternal salvation it is necessary “for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Then, the pope Pius XII continued: there is the dangerous error to believe that it is possible to accept Christ and to “reject genuine loyalty to His Vicar on Earth” [The Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302, in: Documents of the Christian Church 127; Pius XII qt. from Mystici Corporis Christi in: Sherrard (1978a) 60].

It means that the eternal salvation of men had been separated from the acceptance of Lord Jesus Christ as the Savior and God, from fulfillment of the God’s commandments, and from the mercy of God. The popes asserted themselves as the unavoidable supplements to God, and the papal subjects received a new deity, perhaps even more authoritative than God Himself, because faith and loyalty to God were sufficient no more: the absolute submission and “genuine loyalty” to the “divine authority” of the pope became the conditions of eternal life. With such dethronement of God, deification of the pope was logically completed.

Consequently, the concept of papal comprehensive “absolute power” was made the article of faith for the papal subjects: it entered the pool of phantasms and images, which compose the foundation of the papal Church of Rome.

The papal authority reached the peak at the time of Innocent III’s pontificate (1198–1216); after his death, the latent decay began to reveal itself gradually, as the consequence of the loss of reality. Yet, almost all Roman popes continued the attempts to improve and expand the beliefs into the exclusive papal status. Again, and again, and again they re–iterated the old claims, perhaps, with the expectations to hypnotize their subjects until such a degree that they would accept the fruits of papal imagination as the historical reality. Practically, each new pope or the papal council proclaimed the papal supremacy using the different expressions, yet, keeping the essence intact. (By the way, the real power does not request submission and does not reiterate endlessly its claims on superiority; it is not concerned with the apparent attributes or recognition: it actually dominates, rules, and controls by own existence. There is an old saying: words indicate weakness; deeds in silence reveal the greatness.)

For instance (1 through 4),

1) The fifteenth century; the Council of Basel–Ferrara–Florence–Rome (1431–1445) declares the pope’s primacy “over the whole world.” It pronounces him to be the head of the whole church, “a common father” for “people from all parts,” and “the father and teacher of all Christians” with the full St. Peter the Apostle’s authority over the whole Church [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 528].

2) The sixteenth century; the pope Pius V presents himself as the appointed by God “chief over all nations and all kingdoms” who sits at the “supreme throne of justice” with the fullness of power “to pluck up, destroy, scatter, dispose, plant and built” [Bull Against Elizabeth, 1570  in: Documents of the Christian Church 267–268]; this statements incorporates also Aquinas’ declaration that it is the grave responsibility and business of the prelates to correct by the means of fear and punishment [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica II–II Q.33 a3].

In fact, the papal self–images evoke rather images of the pagan gods of destruction and executioner than the Apostle’s description of the head of a Christian community and his responsibilities, which should not go further observing the commandments of God, teaching of the Gospels, and being himself the role model for his brethren {1 Timothy; Titus}.

3) The nineteenth century; after complete loss of the apparent secular power over the states, which constituted the papal empire, the First Vatican Council (1869–1870), nevertheless, re–asserts “the divine right of the apostolic primacy” and “the full and supreme power of jurisdiction” of the whole church worldwide; the Council declares anathema to those who do not recognize that [e.g., in: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 812–815]

a/ the Roman pope is the “true vicar of Christ,” “the father and teacher of all Christians,” who by “the divine right of the apostolic primacy” is also the “supreme judge” with the “full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church” and holds “a worldwide primacy”

b/ the Church of Rome has “preeminence” of power over “every other church.”

According to the main papal theologian, to commit sin of blasphemy means to “ascribe to a creature” the properties of God [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica II–II Q.13 a1]. Since the beginning of times, it is known that God is the Supreme Judge {Genesis 18:25; Psalm 49(50):6; 57(58):11; 93(94):1–2; Isaiah 33:22}.

According to the Gospel, the followers of Lord God Jesus Christ should “call no man” their “father on earth” for they have one Father Who is in heaven. Likewise, all have one Teacher: only God Himself is the Father and Teacher of all Christians. All men are the brethren, and the greatest among men should be the servant of all, because when God came on the earth, He came to serve, not to be served {Matthew 20:25–28; 23:8–11}.

The claims on the title of “supreme judge” and supreme jurisdiction over all Churches worldwide, presumably, have as the ground the God’s word that He has all judgment and He will judge the living and the dead {John 5:21–22; 2 Timothy 4:1}. As soon as the pope already has usurped the God’s right over the life and death of men and – according to Aquinas – “stands in the God’s place and has a share of the God’s dignity,” why he cannot also usurp the God’s title of “supreme judge”? Yet, the popes commit blasphemy when they ascribe to themselves the abilities to stand at the place of God, to possess the share of dignity of God, to be the supreme judge of the world and the father and teacher of all Christians (perhaps the already existing sacrilegious pope’s self–deification is one of the reasons why the Ignatius of Loyola’s Exercises with mandatory blasphemies against Lord God Jesus Christ became the officially recognized system of training for the members and subjects of the papal hierarchy*7*).

4) The twentieth century; the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) defines the pope’s title as the infallible “supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christ’s faithful,” whose promulgations need neither approval nor judgment of the others. The Council also clarified the doctrine of infallibility of the pope: the pope is infallible, his judgments are “irreformable of themselves... for they are delivered with the assistance of the Holy Spirit,” when he judges not as a private person but as “the supreme teacher of the universal church” [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 869].

The declaration reasserts the old claims, yet, overlooks just one thing: the convincing confirmation that the pope has the right to assert himself as the “supreme teacher” of the Christian Church.

For instance, in the seventh century, the pope Honorius (625–638) propagated the Monothelite heresy, and later the Catholics claimed that he did not speak “ex cathedra.” In the seventeenth century, the popes Paul V and Urban VIII declared that Galileo Galilei is a heretic who defends Copernican “heresy.” Although the papal Inquisition had burned Giordano Bruno at the stake and persecuted Galileo Galilei for the support of Copernican astronomy, later, when there were no doubt that the Earth moves around the Sun, the Catholics started to claim that their popes also spoke not “ex cathedra” [Baybrook 280–283; Trager 211, 223, 232].

In general, the vague definitions usually provide an opportunity to defend false doctrines or to substitute the false for the truth. Logically, the term “ex cathedra” should be complemented by the specific rituals, which would leave no doubt that the pope speaks as “the supreme teacher of the universal church” because the assertions, that when some popes promulgated heresy, they spoke not “ex cathedra,” thus could err, destroy the very foundation of the papal claims on their infallibility.                 

The history confirms that the infallibility of the pope is at least doubtful. According to Savonarola, “many wicked popes... have erred,” and many popes held opinions contradictory to opinions of their predecessors and revoked the decrees of their predecessors [Savonarola ref. and qtd. in: Baybrook 282–283]. However, Savonarola’s destiny illustrates that sometimes, the justification of the papal actions could be anything but the eagerness to preserve the purity of faith. Savonarola was burned at the stake as the heretic in 1498, after he rejected the pope Alexander VI’s (Borgia) offer to make him cardinal and archbishop of Florence and refused to discontinue his sermons, which were hostile to the politic of Borgia [cf.: Lea 3:210–211,214–217,234–235]. Thus, the Savonarola’s execution was, in fact, political assassination: no one normal believer would offer the Cardinalship to a heretic.

The papacy still clings to the concept of the pope’s infallibility; otherwise, it would lose the ground for its fundamental claims on “standing at the place of God,” assistance of “the Holy Spirit,” and possession with the divine authority and special power. From such a point of view, the term “ex cathedra” plays the same role in the papal establishment as the decree that the priests in the state of mortal sin are able to act with the power of God: both assertions provide at least some appearance of the answers to the probable doubts of the papal subjects.

The recent apologies of the Roman pope John Paul II for the Catholics’ “wrongs” (such as the Inquisition and the Crusades) prompt some questions. Both events – the Crusades and the Inquisition had been initiated by the Roman popes, sanctioned and implemented by the Church Councils and made the historical actuality by the pope’s subjects. Indeed, as soon as the papal Council grants the Catholics who expel heretics (and apprehend their land for occupation by the Catholics) the “holy privilege” of the Crusaders [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 234], it is obvious that the Council fully supports both papal decisions – the Crusades and the persecution of heretics. Furthermore, when the popes define the status, purposes, and actions of the Crusaders and inquisitors, they perform the role of “supreme teacher” of their church.

Consequently, many generations of the Catholics believed that the Inquisition is in fact the “holy office,” which acts according to the Law of God. Consequently, they betrayed their neighbors to the Inquisition, participated in torturing and execution of the victims, and enriched themselves with the property of the executed “heretics” and the expelled non–Catholics. Some inquisitors have been canonized and today still are listed among the official Catholic saints.

Therefore, even with all vagueness of the application of the term “ex cathedra,” it is evident, that both events were consistent with the self–assumed role of the supreme teacher of the whole papal church and were supported by the Councils, therefore, the popes did speak “ex cathedra” and according to the papal own assertions and practices of the papal hierarchy must be held infallible in their judgment. Yet, when the pope John Paul II apologies for the sanctioned by the popes and the papal establishment crimes, he indicates that the pope – the “supreme judge” and “vicar of Christ” standing “at the place of God” – can be not infallible, therefore, guilty before

a/ the schismatics – the Byzantine/Greek Christians, who, according to the official –  Aquinas’– papal doctrine, where the papacy still finds the answer to contemporary problems, must be exterminated for their mortal sin of disobedience to the pope, separation from the papal establishment, and refusal to submit their mind and conscience to the control of the papal hierarchy

b/ the heretics whom the papal Inquisition hunted with “ferocity unknown in any beast” [Durant 784].

If to assume that the pope John Paul II was infallible when he made his apologies, it looks like the previous infallible supreme teachers–judges–popes had seduced their sheep to violate at least some of the Ten Commandments of God and commit the mortal sins, in particular, to torture and kill, to deprive of good name and repute, and to steal property of their neighbors – the Jews, the Moors, the Byzantine/Greek Christians, and many other victims whom the papacy recognized as heretics and schismatics and whom the papal subjects persecuted, tortured, murdered, and deprived of good repute and all their possessions, including life.

Therefore, the apologies of the contemporary Roman pope for the Catholics’ “wrongs” initiated by the previous Roman popes are not consistent with

a/ the official doctrine of infallibility of the Roman pope and with Aquinas’ notion of “uniformity of relationship with God” (if one pope errs and another pope is infallible, it means that they cannot have the “uniformity of relationship with God” because one pope has knowledge, which only God grants, and another pope who does err does not have the true knowledge, which only God grants)

b/ the doctrine of succession to St. Peter and the popes’ tradition to reflect themselves as the deities lesser than God, yet more than men, and as the reincarnation of  St. Peter the Apostle (how the reincarnations of the same person can contradict one another?).

Such inconsistency reminds the text from the Gospels concerning the kingdom divided against itself {Matthew 12:25–26; Luke 11:17}.

Then, the apologies of the pope John Paul II might indicate one of three hidden events, or even all of them:

1) understanding that the popes who err do not have the assistance of the Holy Spirit, as they claim; in such a case, one question would be logical: which kind of spirit assisted the popes who contradicted the word of God, for example, sent their subjects–Crusaders to kill the non–Catholics and their subjects–inquisitors to torture and execute their neighbors–brothers/heretics?

2) the deep internal crisis of the hierarchy built on political theology, because the inconsistency of actions concerning the main truth of the system usually signifies the latent processes of decay

3) an attempt to update the image of the papacy and to convince the world that political theology had become the humane doctrine and perhaps even the contemporary Inquisition–Holy Office acquired the human face. Today the papacy has nothing to lose with such declarations, because within the majority of the states, the Catholics must have the convincing arguments for legal deprivation of the non–Catholics of property, land, good repute, and life: the non–Catholics’ rejection of the Catholicism and refusal to worship the pope and to submit themselves to the papal control are not enough (at least, apparently) for the death penalty in the majority of the civilized states.

However, all papal apologies and declarations cannot disguise the facts that in the beginning of the twenty–first century,

A) the Roman pope is the head of the same establishment that still includes the Inquisition and has heathen Aquinas’ political theology as its own official doctrine

B) the papacy continues to assert the same claims on the worldwide domination and supremacy over the Universal Christian Church, which it made at the time of the beginning of the Great Schism and during all centuries of religious wars and persecutions of the non–Catholics

C) the essence of the contemporary papal Church of Rome– the Vatican – remains the same as it was in the time of the Crusades and Medieval Inquisition.

It means that today nobody can guarantee that tomorrow the Catholics will not be inspired by the contemporary pious abbots to repeat their deeds:

–– to forcefully convert the non–Catholics into Catholicism and assassinate those who refuse to accept the “absolute authority” of the pope

–– to rob and destroy the Greek Christian Orthodox temples

–– to assassinate the rulers who do not honor the papal demands

–– to assassinate the opponents and enemies of the papacy

–– to unleash crusades and “holy” war against those who refuse recognize “divine” authority of the pope and to convert into papal faith – Aquinas’ political theology

–– to repeat another examples of the absolute obedience to their superiors known from the history of the papal Church of Rome(e.g., the St. Bartholomew Night’s massacre of the Huguenots).

The Forbidden Chalice


The apparent virtues of the Perfected attracted many followers and the Albigensians–Cathari–Manicheans’ movement became the actual threat to the papal power. Eventually, the papal Inquisition exterminated the Albigensians–Cathari–Manicheans; however, their doctrine continued to live and penetrated the very core of the papal establishment. The following line of the events (1 through 5) illustrates how the heresy of the physically terminated heretics overwhelmed the executors.

1. In the fifth century, the Roman pope Leo the Great condemned the communion in one element (by bread only) as heresy, because it was the practice of the Manicheans: in imitation of the ancient rite of the Zoroastrians, the Manicheans replaced the Eucharist with breaking of bread*9*.

2. The Fourth Lateran Council (in 1215, about 10 years before Tomas Aquinas was born) recognized the proper (orthodox) order of the Holy Communion in the statement: by the power of God, bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and wine into the Blood of Christ [Documents of the Christian Church 163].

3. Thomas Aquinas, the main papal theologian whose doctrine became the official doctrine of the papal Church of Rome, modified the concept of transubstantiation with the Aristotle’s concept of accidents – inessential, although detectible by senses, changeable property of the substance.

In particular, Aquinas asserted: as soon as “an accident is divinely given the power to exist in itself,” the accident becomes able to be “in itself the subject of another accident” [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica III Q.75 a2, a4, a5; Q.77 a2; Documents of the Christian Church 163–166]. The essence of the Aquinas’ assertion is the logical gymnastics in the Aristotelian style:

– there is no difference between “accidents”; therefore, this something that human senses discern as bread has no different essence that another something that human senses discern as fruit of vine

– there is no difference between bread and fruit of vine anymore – the transubstantiated bread is both the flesh and the blood

– as soon as the “accident” (bread) by the divine power becomes able to exist by itself, without substance, to assume another substance, and to become the subject of another accident, there is no difference between the communion by two elements (bread and fruit of vine) or by one element (bread only).

It means that Aquinas opposes the Aristotelian logic to the most sacred tradition of the Christian Church; however, as soon as Aquinas is recognized as the main papal theologian, the papal establishment eventually accepted the communion of the Manicheans instead of the Divine Eucharist.

The Church is the Christian Church only if she preserves the order of the Eucharist established by God Himself. The Cup of Salvation as the symbol of the anticipated Christianity was foreseen long before coming of the Messiah {Psalm 115(116):13(4)}. At His last supper, Lord God Jesus Christ called Himself “the True Vine” and His followers – the branches, which must bear the fruits. When God gave His disciples a cup with fruit of vine with the words “Drink of it, all of you, for this is My Blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins,” He established the order of the Holy Communion, which all His followers should keep in remembrance of Him {Matthew 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20; John 15:1}.

The order of the Eucharist is the most precious tradition, which unifies the group of people into the Christian Church, and the Chalice of Salvation is inseparable expression of the Christian Faith into salvation and eternal life promised by God.

4. The Council of Trent (1545–1563), which was guided by “the mind and spirit of St. Thomas” and which was summoned to define the Catholic doctrine and to reform the papal church [Walz ref. in: New Catholic Encyclopedia 14:134], at session 21, of June 16, 1562, denied that the Holy Communion with both elements is a “divine commandment.” The papal Council asserted that the “custom” to use both elements had been changed “in the course of time,” and condemned those who deny that “the whole Christ is received when Holy Communion is received under the form of bread alone” [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 726–727; Documents of the Council of Trent in Latin ref. and qtd. in: Hughes, Philip 327–328].

The decision of the Council of Trent contradicts the Gospels and the words of St. Paul the Apostle with which he conveys “the received from the Lord Himself” order of the Holy Communion: with bread that is His Body given for many, and the Cup that is the new covenant in His Blood shed for many for the forgiveness of sins {Matthew 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26}.  

5. Contrary to the commandment of God, contrary to the Roman pope who lived five centuries before the Great Schism, and contrary to the post–Schism Council of the papal Church of Rome (the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215), the Aquinas’ modification of the most sacred tradition of the Christian Church resulted in revival of the old Manichean heresy: the papacy withdrew the Cup of Eucharist from the Catholic laity. The communion with both elements (bread and fruit of vine) was left available only for the papal hierarchy: the pope, prelates, the papal clergy, etc. The Council of Constance (1414–1418) named the official reason for such a practice: avoidance of “various dangers and scandals.” The Council also warned that the priests who “communicate the people under the form of both bread and wine” would be excommunicated [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 418–419]. 

This is the most dreadful event in the history of the Western civilization, which confirms ultimate destruction of the Christian Church of Rome and establishment of the heathen establishment – the papal empire – on her ruins:

–– although the papacy through the Inquisition physically exterminated the Manicheans, the main papal theologian and canonized papal saint Thomas Aquinas incorporated the Manichean heresy into the papal dogma

–– those who violate the words of God become unable to receive the Holy Spirit of God; they keep the appearance, yet, lose the inner essence: those who deny or contradict the words of God are incapable to act by the power of God; therefore, the cup in the hands of the Catholic priest (even when the privileged members of the papal Church drink from it) denotes anything but continuation of the Christian tradition

–– those who in violation of the Christian teachings shed blood of the countless “heretics” and worshiped the idol, became the servants of the arch–evil; consequently, they became unable to keep and thus, by their own will, forfeited the most precious tradition of the Christians.

The acceptance of the Manichean heresy (communion with bread only) by the papal hierarchy triggered off the revolt of the faithful Christians in Bohemia under the leadership of Jan Hus the priest who demanded the Cup of Eucharist for all the laity, because Lord God Jesus Christ gave it to all. The papacy denounced Jan Hus and his followers (who believed in the supreme authority of the Gospels and refused to accept the papal heresy) as disobedient to the Roman Church schismatics and heretics, who “rashly dared to assert that the Christian people ought to receive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist under the form of both bread and vine” [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 418].

The personal destiny of Jan Hus the priest illustrates the deadly potential of heresy covered with the label of “the article of faith” and protected with the oppressive worldly structures: he was summoned to the Council of Constance with the oath of “safe–conduct” (the guarantee of physical safety), condemned as a heretic, and, in violation of the oath of “safe–conduct,” burnt at the stake, in 1415. The reasons for the perjury included not only rejection of the Aquinas’ heresy; Jan Hus reminded the papacy and its subjects – Catholics – of the right and appropriate order of the Christian Church: the highest authority is the Word–God, not heresy. Yet, it was too late, because the heresy became the core of the papal dogma through philosophical speculations, figments of imagination, compromises, and slavish praises produced by the theologians philosophizing at the steps of the pope’s throne.

The anger of the papacy was also fueled by the Jan Hus’ appeal directly to Lord God Jesus Christ as to the Supreme Judge, “bypassing the church’s intermediaries” and “greatly scandalizing Christ’s faithful” [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 428]. It looks like the main reason for the “scandal” was the rejection of the papal pretense to be the “supreme judge” and mediator between God and man. Yet, following the Scriptures, Jan Hus did not honor usurpation of the place of God committed by the pope, and refused to commit the sin of blasphemy by ascribing the attributes of God to the creature. For Jan Hus, as for all Christians, Lord God Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man and the only Supreme Judge. Only through Him, the Holy Spirit comes from God the Father, and a human soul–heart–mind illuminated and educated by the Holy Spirit, s transformed into the dwelling of the Holy Trinity {Matthew 23:8–11; John 14:15–27; 1 Peter 5:4; 1 Timothy 2:5}.

The Sentence of Degradation against Jan Hus  and Condemned Articles of J. Hus  indicate that Jan Hus by literally following the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles {e.g., 1 Peter 5:1–4} consistently and completely refuted the main Aquinas’ assertions concerning the papacy, especially the claims on the supremacy and “divine” status of the pope and papal hierarchy.

For instance [in: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 428–431], Jan Hus

a/ denies that St. Peter the Apostle was or is the head of the Holy Catholic Church; only Lord God Jesus Christ is

This articles is against the foundation for the claim on supremacy of the Church of Rome over the entire Christendom and against presentation of the Church of Rome as the estate of St. Peter, therefore against the assertions of the papacy that the Roman popes exclusively possess the special power, which – as the papacy alleges – only St. Peter the Apostle received from God and which only the Roman pope receives as the heir of the “St. Peter’s estate”– the Church of Rome.

b/ declares that there is no proof that the Church must be governed by one head: the God’s true disciples scattered through the world would better serve the God’s purposes “without these monstrous heads.”

c/ asserts that the popes should not be called the “Most Holy” by the reason of the papal office only. Until the popes literally follow the way of earthly life of Lord God Jesus Christ and His Apostle, they must not hold “the place of Christ or of Peter”: the popes invented the ecclesiastical obedience “without the express authority of Scripture.”

These articles defy the papal claims on the supreme authority of the Roman popes over the Christendom and refute the Aquinas’ doctrine of unreserved obedience to the pope and the superior, which is the very foundation of the papal hierarchical church.

Although the papacy was successful with physical extermination of the Manicheans–Albigensians–Cathari, it failed with the Bohemians – followers of Jun Hus. The execution of Jan Hus in 1414 and the consequent unsuccessful crusade against Bohemia initiated by the pope Martin V began the manifested state of the destruction of the Holy Roman Empire and revealed the latent, yet, irreversible process of decay, which ended the spiritual dominance of the papacy over entire Europe. Three strikes accomplished collapse of the papal empire:

1) humiliation and confinement of Pius VI and Pius VII at the time of the French Revolution in 1789 and the Napoleon’s Empire in 1804–1815, which brought to the end the papal manifest power and supremacy over the secular authorities

2) the ultimate transformation of that what was the vast papal empire into the Vatican – the smallest state in the world (108.7 acres) [New Catholic Encyclopedia 10:964–965; 14:555]; besides, the papacy had bought its political autonomy for the price of cooperation with Fascism, through the Concordat of 1929 with Fascist Italy

3) the perjury committed against Jan Hus and his execution for the attempt to profess the true Christian faith had provided Dr. Martin Luther with the solid arguments, which facilitated acceptance and expansion of the Reformation [e.g., Luther Address to the Nobility].

New Catholic Encyclopedia ascribes to Martin Luther a remark: “it was Thomas Aquinas who prevailed over” Jan Hus at the Council of Constance in 1414 [New Catholic Encyclopedia 14:110].

In fact, the papal hierarchy was successful only in treacherous execution of Jan Hus, it did not prevail over the truth; moreover, the legacy of the Christian martyr destroyed the structural wholeness of the papal establishment sustained with the heresy of Thomas Aquinas.



Some Historical Details and Lessons


There are some indications, which might be interpreted either as the internal crisis or the beginning of the implementation of new strategy of worldwide domination, which, as the first stage, involves the introduction of new image of the papal Church.

The first, the concept of religious freedom introduced by the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) states that “every kind of human coercion should be excluded from religion.” This declaration contradicts the fundamentals of the papacy: the Augustine’ doctrine Compelle Intrare, the Innocent III’s assertions of the papal “power and duty to coerce,” and the Aquinas’ justification of the death penalty for heretics, schismatics, and other mortal sinners [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1007; Selected Letters of the Pope Innocent III… 65] *10*.

Yet, within the community of the papal “people of God,” freedom of thinking still is not allowed: according to the pope John Paul II, opposition to the teaching of “the Church’s pastors” is not “a legitimate expression” of Christian freedom [John Paul II Veritatis Splendor §113.2 in: The Encyclicals of John Paul II 765].

Many centuries the doctrine of papal saint Thomas Aquinas provided the answers and insights for the papacy; it became the very fabric of the papal writings and decrees of the papal councils. However, what if, supposedly, a Catholic suddenly realizes the inhumane and anti–Christian essence of such Aquinas’ notion (justified by the common good of the Catholic community) as permissibility, moreover, the duty of the faithful Catholics

–– to wage war against the non–Catholics because they are the non–Catholics

–– to deprive the non–Catholics from their life, property, and good repute, because they are the non–Catholics

–– to maim, rob, torture, execute heretics, schismatics, and other “mortal sinners,” because they do reject the papal sacrileges claims and do not accept as the truth the Augustine–Aquinas–popes falsification of the word of God?

Does it mean that this Catholic opposes to the teaching of “the Church’s pastors,” and he should wait with his thinking until they make their infallible judgment?

The anti–Catholic actions and persecution of the Catholics in some countries could be the actual reason for the apparently illogical turn of the papacy from the active implementation of the Augustine–Aquinas’ policy of coercion, which the papacy practiced during many centuries, to the fight for the freedom of religion. Yet, as it could be inferred from the history, for the sake of “the common good” of the papacy, any crime is allowed, even contradiction to own fundamentals.

The second, during many centuries the Roman popes followed the doctrine of two swords and vigorously combated kings and other rulers who did not recognize the right of the pope to intervene with the affairs of their kingdoms and states. Therefore, in such historical context, the assertion that the papal Church “has no weapons at her disposal apart from those of the spirit, of the word and of love” and she, by the name of God, implores everybody do not kill and to respect “dignity and freedom” [John Paul II Redemptor Hominis §16.11 in:  The Encyclical of John Paul II 74] also contradicts to the statements, proclamations, demands, and acts of many infallible predecessors of the recent Roman Pontiff and the referred above doctrines of the papal saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

After the conversion of the Roman Empire into Christianity, the Roman popes began to crown and excommunicate the emperors who, as other Catholics, even cardinals, had to kiss the pope’s foot/shoe and to genuflect before the pope [e.g., Luther 56, 58–59]. Perhaps, the mandatory genuflection was instituted in resemblance of the obeisance introduced by Alexander of Macedonia, who asserted that he is the son of the main Greek deity; perhaps, it was the pope’s desire to humiliate the civil authority and own subjects; perhaps it was another reason. For example, the similar ritual was mandatory for the Manicheans/ Albigensians/ Cathari: the Believers (the lower class) prostrated themselves before the Perfected (the elite), and asked their blessing [e.g., Vacandard 59].

(When Alexander of Macedonia in imitation of the Orient rulers introduced proskunetis – obeisance, or the ritual of kneeling/prostrating before a king intended to express complete submission, his fellow Macedonians regarded the initiative of Alexander with abhorrence: they followed the Greeks who considered proskunetis before any mortal man as the sign of slavish submission inconsistent with personal dignity of a free human being [e.g., Diogenus, Aeschylus, Euripides ref. in: Bosworth 284–285]. Even in the heathen world, the difference between man and deity and at least some understanding of human dignity existed.)

The history preserved the eleventh century’s tale of struggle of the pope Gregory VII with Henry IV, the Emperor of Germany and Italy. Gregory VII withdrew “the government of the whole kingdom of Germans and of Italy” from Henry IV and absolved all Christians from the oath of allegiance and duties to serve the Emperor [Deposition of Henry IV by Gregory VII, February 1076, in: Documents of the Christian Church 113–114].

If Gregory VII attempted to justify his claims on the papal authority over kings by the authority of St. Peter the Apostle and the Gospels [Gregory VII’s Letter to the Bishop of Metz, 1081, in: Documents of the Christian Church 114–115], the pope Innocent III employed different styles:

–– in 1198, rather in the style of an astrologer, he asserted that the royal power derives its dignity from “the pontifical authority,” as the inferior moon derives its light from the superior sun [Innocent III on Empire and Papacy: “The Moon and the Sun,” October 1198, in: Documents of the Christian Church 123]

––  in 1213 and 1214, after king John submitted his kingdom to the papal authority, with the reference to St. Peter the Apostle, Innocent III proclaimed that ”the single person of Christ’s Vicar” unites kingdom (“a royal priesthood”) and the priesthood (“a kingdom of priests”) [Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III… 149, 177–178].

The pope Boniface VIII (1294–1302) modified the claim on the absolute spiritual and temporal power with so–called concept of “Two Swords”: the Church holds two types of power as two swords, but the temporal sword is under the spiritual sword. “As we learn from the words of the Gospel,” when the Lord told Peter to put up his sword into the sheath, He confirmed that Peter – and through him, the pope – has the temporal power [The Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302, in: Documents of the Christian Church 126–127].

In fact, the referred by Boniface VIII text discloses misunderstanding of Peter, who attempts to hinder the mission of God, as he already tried to convince God do not go to Jerusalem, because the meaning of the word of God is still hidden from him. Moreover, God not only forbade Peter to use the worldly weapon, He also healed the wound of the servant from the sword of His disciple. The actions of God were predicted by Zechariah the Prophet: “Not by army and not by power, but My Spirit” said Lord Sabaoth to Zorobabel, the builder of the Second Temple and one of the ancestors of the family that accommodated the earthly life of Lord God Jesus Christ {Matthew 1:12–13; 16:21–27; Luke 18:31–34; 22:50–51; John 18:10–11; Zechariah 4:6–7}: in leaps of his imagination, Boniface VIII follows the Origen–Augustine–Aquinas’ tradition of misinterpretation of the Scriptures.

The mission of Church cannot be accomplished with the weapon or temporal power. The Church is another realm with another level of complexity and other logic of actions, where the primitive power of weapon and other means of coercion are irrelevant and worthless. Yet, the papal establishment did exactly the things forbidden by God: it spread its dogma with the sword, by force and coercion, and employed the weapon, death, and destruction as the means to gain the temporal power and to support the life of that what supposed to be a Christian Church.

In the expectation to obtain the absolute temporal power, the popes fostered special training and growth of the Church’s troops – monks, nuns, and laymen arranged in the special self–sufficient structures – the religious orders and other formations unreservedly obedient and loyal to the pope*7*. Some of these units are designated to serve the papal empire as the elite guards served the Roman emperor. The papal theologians attempt to justify existence of the papal army with the Scriptures; in particular, they use St. Paul the Apostle’s comparisons of the follower of God to a “good soldier,” who does not pursue the civilian affairs because he intends to please his master, and to the hard working farmer who would harvest the crops and have the first share of it {2 Timothy 2:1–6}. Another insight, which the papal hierarchy extracted from the Gospels and embodied into the purposes of the Inquisition, was that it has the right to gather the harvest, to separate wheat, and to burn the weeds {Matthew 13:24–30}.

To focus the papal troops exclusively on the service to the papacy and the common good of the papacy, popes prohibited marriage for priests (marriage also was forbidden for the Perfected – the elite or the highest rank of the initiated Manicheans and for the Plato’s guardians). Any prohibition of the natural human way of life, or its forced rejection under the pressure, or according to the will of the superior, contradicts to the Law of God: it is fulfillment of the prediction of St. Paul the Apostle that some would abandon the faith and follow “to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through hypocrisy of liars scorched in their conscience, who forbid marriage” {1 Timothy 4:1–5}. Only free will of man should make the decision to reject the natural way of life in a search for another meaning of existence. The warriors, who were made by coercion, corrupt and destroy; they do not protect. The problems with morality of the papal clergy and such papal invention as “priests” in the state of mortal sin disclose the feedback of the mandatory suppression of the human nature as the price of initiation into the “grace” of the papal “perfect office.” 

To the contrary, in the Christian Churches, the Christians can serve God either as married priests or as priests–monks: they choose their own way of life according to their own free will.

Each human being has a specific mission to accomplish within this world. Each one of us is a laborer who has to bring the fruits of the harvest: children, families, friends, work for the blessed by God country, assistance to the others, whatever is the purpose of life, there is the mission that must be accomplished and there are the fruits, which must be cultivated for God, in love and perfection.

Therefore, each attempt of the forceful change or undue influence on life of another human being should be comprehended as the sin against God, against another human being, and against own nature, especially when the purpose of such intrusion is transformation of the human being into the blind weapon, which might be used to satisfy lust for dominion or to corrupt the others, and especially when such transformation demands the perversion of human nature through deprivation of the human being of freedom, happiness, family, and the feelings, commitments, victories, joys, and sorrows. This sin – the mortal sin indeed – results in self–condemnation and self–annihilation. Although people might intentionally suppress own conscience and reject the Law of God, they cannot erase own essence – the image and inner knowledge of God. This image and this knowledge are the judge, and when a human being reaches the threshold of perversion and incompatibility with the image of God, the deepest structures of the soul activate self–annihilation.

Five issues reveal the utter degradation and corruption of the papal establishment:

1/ the notion of perfection by “the grace” of the papal office

2/ the aggrandizement of the status of papal clergy

3/ unreserved obedience to the superiors in such matters as re–programming of the conscience – replacement of the meaning of virtue and sin according to the pope’s order, violation of the commandments of God and rights of man (political assassinations, executions of heretics, robbery of the non–believers, forceful conversion)

4/ mandatory unreserved obedience of the laity and the clergy to the superior–pope and members of his office

5/ the declaration that the priests in the state of mortal sin are able to perform their service to God.

In summary, these issues reveal the framework of the papal hierarchy as “the unity of the opposites”: 


the complete freedom of actions unrestricted
by the laws and morality and all–permissiveness
for the members of the controlling group
(the papacy and the members of the papal office)

|      |

the complete submission and obedience
for the controlled group
(the subjects of the papal hierarchy).


These two notorious opposites are the main components of the Aristotle’s universal pattern: ‘master–→slave.’

Since Socrates, slavery has only one synonym – death: death of the intellect, corruption of morality, and perversion of human nature. Hence, all slave–owning establishments industriously pave roads to own graves, although the time–range and conditions of the roads might differ. In any establishment, physical or spiritual slavery fosters transformation of the people unprotected with true knowledge of God into the living dead and criminals: the consequences for the papal establishment might be inferred from the history of the papacy (see References, e.g., New Catholic Encyclopedia, works of Dr. Martin Luther and works of other authors concerning deeds of the papacy).

Two events could facilitate the insight into the inner world of the subjects of the papal establishment and reveal the degree of defenselessness of the laity and ordinary subjects before the members of the papal hierarchy:

1/ for the papal subjects, disobedience to the superior is a mortal sin [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica II–II Q.105 a1]

2/ if, even in the case with the Bohemians who rebelled against the deprivation of the laity of the Cup of Eucharist, the papal subjects were rejected the right of hearing because, according to Capistrano the Inquisitor, the servants are not superior to their master [Capistrano ref. in: Lea 2:473], it is understandable, that in such “petty matters” as complains about the sexual abuse of a child by the corrupted priest (who also is the superior for the laity), the official position of the hierarchy might be the same.

Therefore, the simple act of protection of a child from the abuse by the “priest” in the state of mortal sin demands extraordinary bravery of the child’s parents: their actions can be evaluated as the rebellion against the whole papal hierarchy, especially because the foundation of the papal hierarchy includes

a/ the Aristotelian concepts of common good, man as social animal, and superiority of the good of the community over the good of a member of the community

b/ Aquinas’ postulate, that even the wicked prelates must be obeyed to avoid scandals.

The place, where such “clergy” is in charge, might be defined as the trap for the sheep, from which ferocious wolves take their prey {Acts 20:28–30}, not as a Christian community, which lives according to the apostolic traditions.

With eradication of a family as the natural way of life for men, all ambitions and all life of the papal clergy had been focused on the papacy. The papacy learned to transform its subject into the human weapon with which the popes

1/ assassinated or replaced the disobedient kings and rulers

2/ tortured and put to disgraceful death the heretics and different–minded

3/ accumulated money, lands, and other property

4/ subdued the insubordinate states and provinces

5/ penetrated the state and social structures of the European nations

6/ sold the indulgencies – absolution of sins for money.

The assertion that the papal clergy can free the soul from the Purgatory became the article of the papal faith: pay money, buy the indulgence, and a Catholic priest will let the soul of the sinner to have vacations from the suffering in the Purgatory (discovered by the papacy somewhere at the middle stage between the Earth and the Paradise) [in: Baybrook 262–274, 426; Luther Ninety–five Theses §21–28, §35, §49, §50, §82–85  12–14, 17]. Sale of the indulgences is based on the sacrilegious assertion that decisions of papal clergymen made for money, which they obtain from the sinners, supplant the judgment of God.

The papal imperial and commercial policies revealed the completed transformation of the papal Church of Rome into the resemblance of the heathen Roman Empire, the worst enemy, which exterminated Christianity through execution of the Christians. They also triggered off the Reformation, persecution of the Catholics, and expulsion of the papal subjects (e.g., the Jesuits) from some European states.

For instance, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, German Catholic theologian Dr. Martin Luther*11* of the Order of Monks at Wittenberg proclaimed that the Roman pope is against Christ and exists “to ruin and destroy the existence and will of Christ” [Luther 56–57].

What could be the rationale behinds the reasons, which forced, for instance, the Western Schism when

1/ Dr. Martin Luther, the learned theologian and member of the papal hierarchy, rebelled against the Roman pope (therefore, according to the papal dogma, committed the mortal sin of disobedience and forfeited eternal salvation of own soul) and against the indulgencies through which the papacy exercises its “absolute” power over the souls and money of the papal subjects?

2/ the Germans of the sixteenth century rejected the papacy – the institution of their ancestors (during the eighth–ninth centuries the papacy became, as some researchers assert [e.g., Romanides], the Frankish institution – the German tribe was the component of the Franks).

As it could be inferred from the Dr. Martin Luther’s writings, it happened because

a/ while the Germans expected to become the lords, they became the servants to the Roman pope who appropriated the real authority, took “unlawful possession of all German foundations,” and sold them to the non–Germans without any profit for Germany

b/ by the hands of the Germans, the Roman pope had taken from the Roman Emperor in Constantinople “what he had no right to” take (Dr. Luther refers to the Latin empire, which the Roman pope established in Byzantium, on the ruins of the Christian Churches pillaged and destroyed by the Catholic Crusaders)

c/ the Roman pope sought to give the empire to himself, not to Germans, and to control the whole world through the Germans [Luther 49, 94–95].

Yet, according to the pope Innocent III, the Apostolic See already had “transferred the Empire from the Greeks to the Germans in the person of Charles the Great” [The statement of the Papal Claim by Innocent III, March 1202, in: Documents of the Christian Church 123].

Could the material considerations and, in particular, the unfulfilled expectations of the imperial power over the world, be the actual causes of the Reformation in Germany? If so, the West Schism demonstrates one more failure of the papacy to achieve its main goals (absolute secular and absolute spiritual dominance) and its inability to establish the common good of the Superstructure as the main priority (higher than the national interests) for all papal subjects.

Therefore, despite the claims on own exclusive deified status, the papacy had to fight for the power and wealth with own subjects as any worldly institution does, and had to suffer defeat and rejection as any other men’s establishment does. It was not able to obtain the absolute power over the minds of its subjects, starting with the members of own hierarchy, e.g., such as Dr. Luther and his followers: the clerics, the “temporal lords” – German princes and vassals of the pope, and laymen. Ultimately, the Germans for the sake of the national interests (the common good of Germany) rejected the common good of the papacy along with the papacy itself. 

Much more could be said concerning the fruits harvested by the political organization, which the papacy has built. However, the history of the papacy and its evaluation already compose the contents of many books in many volumes [for instance, New Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of the Vatican and Papacy, and other works mentioned in the References].

It should be noticed: although the contemporary papal communications utilize the modern terms and apparently softened wordings, the essence does not differ from the old claims on the status of deity and on the absolute supremacy over the Christendom.

For example, the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) re–introduced the old idea of the papal supremacy as the declaration that all Churches “long for” the unity, that the Great Schism and the Reformation “affect the seamless robe of Christ”; therefore, the unity of all Churches estranged from the “Roman apostolic see” must be restored [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 908, 915].

The usual consequence of self–deification is the loss of the sense of reality; only then, it would become possible to ascribe to men the ability to “affect the seamless robe of Christ,” while the deeds and petty businesses of men cannot affect the magnificence and grandeur of Almighty Omnipotent God.

Besides, neither the papal politics nor delusion of men determines existence of the Universal Christian Church. Nothing in the world can break the unity of the Church with God or separates her from God. The Universal Church “longs for” only for her life–presence of God: the presence of God creates the Church, not submission to the self–proclaimed “divinely appointed” functionaries obsessed with the lust for the worldly power and domination. It means that whichever religious establishments–victims of ecumenism decide to come into the union with the papal establishments, even if it would be all churches of the world, they will become the papal subjects, therefore, idol–worshipers, and they will have nothing common with the Universal Christian Church – the Body of Christ is not accessible for the politics of men and slaves of the political organizations.

In some contemporary papal decrees, letters, and other texts, the request of the absolute submission to the papal authority became “the ecumenical task,” “one of the pastoral priorities,” and “the ministry of unity”; the Aquinas’ common good sometimes is superseded by the “essential good”; “unreserved obedience” receives the name of “the communion”; and the Greek/Eastern Orthodox schismatics now are referred as “the sister Churches.” Moreover, the Second Vatican Council recognized the right of the Orthodox Christians “to be honored by the title of Christian.” It even “went so far” as to declare that the Orthodox Churches, although separated from the papacy, through celebrating the Eucharist, build the Church of God, and possess the true sacraments: “the priesthood and the Eucharist” by the apostolic succession [John Paul II Ut Unum Sint §12.2, §13.1 in: The Encyclical of John Paul II 921–922; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 916–917]

Such drastic change of the wordings of the official statements prompts the questions concerning the consistency of the papal claims and the necessity of the papacy itself. However, these apparent changes are unable to change the true essence of Aquinas’ political theology, which, as any heathen theological–philosophical doctrine, is incompatible and irreconcilable with Christianity. 

If, ultimately, the Council of the papal Church of Rome admits that the Greek/Eastern Orthodox Churches can be the Christian Churches and their members are the Christians without recognition of the papal “divine” authority, another group of the papal assertions becomes groundless; for instance, such as it is not possible to accept Christ without “genuine loyalty” to the pope (Pius XII) and the eternal salvation is not possible without submission to the pope (Boniface VIII).

In general, the contemporary wordings cover the same old demands of unreserved obedience to the “supreme shepherd”/pope, and correlation of the eternal destiny of a soul with recognition of the papal authority. They reveal that the contemporary “divine functionaries” still exist within the heathen imaginary world, which has nothing in common with Christianity. Furthermore, for the Christian, contradiction to the word of God, especially, in a form of the request of unreserved obedience to self–appointed “divine functionaries” who still pretend to stand at the place of God, still deprive the laity from the Eucharist with both elements because of Aquinas’ speculations, and still revere as the canonized saints heretics, diviners, inquisitors, and philosophizing theologians, such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Ignatius of Loyola, Theresa of Avila, Raymond of Penãfort, and the others, signifies the utter perversion of the human nature and reminds the special  warnings of St. Paul the Apostle {Acts 20:28–30; 2 Thessalonians 2:3–12; 2 Timothy 4:1–5}.

Christianity is the union in the love of God: if a Christian discerns the image of his beloved God within all the other human beings, how in the world this Christian can demand unreserved obedience or sacrifice the life of his brethren to the faceless idol of the papal common good? If to consider the first apostolic communities of the Christians, it becomes evident that they had no “divine functionaries,” as well as any need of the “supreme shepherds” or the rationale for having an idol at the place of God. The apostolic communities had God and followed His teaching; their elders were the older brothers who provided assistance, comfort, or advice to their brethren in the hour of need. Christianity does not need the worldly authority, the force of coercion, or dominating rulers: God is everything. God is the source of life; He makes His will known, grants purposes, laws, and wisdom to make His will the reality within the world He created. Therefore, those who pretend on the special status, claim the right on the “absolute” power, assert themselves as the “divine functionaries,” and substitute own feeble reasoning and misconceptions for the words of God, attempt to impose on the Christians the same patterns of slavery submission and idol–worship. These patterns sustained existence of the heathen Roman Empire and they must be discarded in the same manner as the Christians in apostolic times discarded the cult of other “divine functionaries” – the Roman Emperors.

In addition, the change of the style and tone of the official papal statements, as well as the modern terms, covers the same old assertions; for instance, such as

1/ God established the Roman pope as the “perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity” that, according to the will of Christ, is responsible for the unity of all Christendom and has to facilitate for all others sharing in the “essential good”

2/ the communion of all Bishops of the “sister Churches” (the Churches who rejected submission to the Roman pope now have the name “sister Churches”) is the God’s plan, therefore, all Christians must be obedient to the divine will and to recognize “the ministry of unity” of the Roman pope [John Paul II Ut Unum Sint  §56.1, §57.1, §88–89, §99, §101 in: The Encyclical of John Paul II  948–949, 967–968, 974–975].

The first assertion re–states the pretense on the exclusive status of the Roman pope who rules according to the Aquinas’ concept of common good and presents himself as the bestowed with the responsibility of worldwide supremacy.

In the second assertion, the key term is “obedience”: the obedience of all Christians to the Roman pope who portrays himself as the minister of unity acting by the will of God for the sake of common good. Besides, this assertion also re–states the First Vatican Council’s declaration (1869–1870) that only “by unity with the Roman pontiff” the Universal Church becomes one flock under “one supreme shepherd” and deviation from this “Catholic truth” endangers salvation and faith of anyone [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 814].

The First Vatican Council’s declaration made in the nineteenth century re–states the fourteenth century Unam Sanctam, in which the pope Boniface VII declared, stated, defined, and pronounced: “it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” [The Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302, in: Documents of the Christian Church 127].

Therefore, whichever wordings and logical dances around in the circles the contemporary followers of Aquinas – those members of the papal office who prepare the drafts of the papal encyclicals – offer, the essence of the contemporary papal documents is the same old claim on the absolute supremacy of the pope and re–assertion of the papal cult as the substitute for the Christian Faith:

a/ the current ecumenical appeal reiterates Aristotle–Aquinas’ concept of the common good; then, it only modifies the wordings: the previous request of submission to the papacy as the mandatory condition of eternal salvation became the demand to recognize “the ministry of unity” of the Roman pope as the “divine will.” According to the Church’s dogma, the violation of the divine will makes impossible salvation of the sinner. For instance, the expulsion from the Paradise, the Flood, and the final destiny of the sinners portrayed by the Book of Revelation are the consequences of the violation of the will of God; consequently, new wordings with the explicit references to God are invented to cover the same old assertion of the necessity of acceptance of the supremacy of the Roman pope as the necessary condition of salvation of “every human creature”

b/  the referred above papal apologies for the Catholic “wrongs,” recognition of the right of the Eastern Orthodox Christians to be called ‘Christians,’ and other modifications of the papal politics are intended to update the papal image–appearance without any change in the essence of the papal faith (political theology) and the papal claims.



The Magisterium


The core of any hierarchy – political, social, religious, or other – always is a specific (brain) center, a group or a person responsible for creation–explanation–modification of the main truth embodied into the system’s beliefs, theological doctrine, ideology, etc. The Aquinas’ scientia divina, and his definition of the exclusive status of the philosophizing theologians resulted in arrangement of the special structure – the Magisterium, or the brain–office of the papal establishment. The beginning of this institution might be found in the ascribed to Origen heretical assertion that the Christians, instead of the word of God, should be fed with the images created for them by their “guardians” – doctors of the Church.

In its contemporary version, the institute of papal theologians has perhaps even more significance than in the time of Aquinas; it is expected to provide “enrichment” of the Catholic faith through the theological science. The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) explicitly refers to the “authentic teaching office,” which has the special place in interpretation of the word of God [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 919].

For instance, Avery R. Dulles proclaims the “ecclesiastical Magisterium” to be inseparable from the Scriptures and tradition. He asserts that the Scriptures alone are not considered, “never intended to be,” and had not proved to be “a self–sufficient rule of faith.” The “living Magisterium” (in which Avery R. Dulles includes the pope and the bishops), has the tasks to guide the “Catholic theology” and reconcile the papal dogma, which is “always a new beginning,” with new situations. The Catholic theology must serve the papal church; in their turn, the papal subjects must willingly and loyally submit themselves to “the teaching of Magisterium” [Dulles x–xi, 106–108,110].

The conclusions from the referred above text: for the papal subjects, before becoming the rule of faith, the words of God – the Scriptures – have to be supplemented with the directives of the pope and his subjects from the Magisterium. The unbiased mind might comprehend the actual nature and contents of the papal supplements to the words of God through invented by the papal theologians “law of Christ” to burn people alive, the atrocities and crimes committed by the papal subjects “in the name of God” during the Crusades and religious wars, the St. Bartholomew Night’s massacre, political assassinations, political writings and actions of the Roman popes. These papal supplements to the words of God prompt two simple inferences:

1/ if the words of God are not sufficient for the papal faith, which always has the new beginning, this faith has nothing in common with the Christian Faith that was revealed at the particular point of time, and, since, leads to the eternity with God, which Whom there is no change

2/ if the papacy exploits and falsifies the word of God for own political purposes, in particular, for justification of murder and crimes against humanity, the papal establishment – papal Church of Rome – has nothing in common with the Christian Church.

Augustine and Anselm define theology – the knowledge of God – as the faith, which seeks understanding. For Roger Haight, theology “governs spirituality” and has faith and revelation as its foundations [Haight 216–217, 231]. Hans Küng refers to theology as “a thinking” or “rational” account of the truth of Christian faith” [Küng (1988) 155; (1989) 32]. Yet, the contemporary Catholic theology is demoted to the level of the servant of the papacy.

This assertion discloses not only perverted perception of the meaning of theology and, especially, the Christian Faith; it also reveals that the papal hierarchy, which pushes theology down, at the place of the servant, has usurped the place of God.

From a particular point of view, the papal hierarchy decided the problem of “the presence and reality of the concept of God” [Winquist 7] very efficiently: it discarded God – anyway, He is uncognizable and invisible – and placed itself at the focus of existence of its unreservedly obedient subjects. At least, their existence would have some meaning as soon as they have the pope/living deity whom they can revere, whose shoe they can kiss, and who has such a “mystic power” that God Himself releases the souls of sinners from the Purgatory if the members of the papal hierarchy are paid (e.g., through the sale of indulgencies) and substitutes the papal laws/dictums for His Own Ten Commandments (especially, such – inconvenient for the papal hierarchical church – as do not have other gods and do not kill).

In the terms of political science, the Magisterium has the programming and controlling functions:

                        a/ to set forth the rules, standards, values–morals, and patterns of behavior, which the papal hierarchy implements as the mandatory for the subjects

b/ to control the compliance of conscience, thinking, and behavior of the subjects with the established rules.

As any hierarchical organization within the particular time scale, the Magisterium became more structured. The papal theologians produced moral theology as “a scientific reflection on the Gospel” and proclaimed that their new composition empowers the papal Magisterium, because it is intended   

1/ to intervene in the maters of the morality and morals

2/ to provide the papal faithful with the “specific particular precepts” for the conscience and to demand the papal subjects to have in their conscience these precepts as “morally binding”

3/ to continue its “important work of vigilance” over the conscience of the faithful [John Paul II Veritatis Splendor §109.2–3, §110.1 762–763].

The pope’s expectations that his theologians would fill in and watch over the conscience of his subjects reveal the old policy through which the papacy achieved its “absolute power” over its subjects: re–programming of the conscience and filling the mind with the “specific particular precepts” prepared by the Magisterium. Again, the historical events disclose the possible contents of these “specific particular precepts” (e.g., the duty to betray the different–minded neighbor to the Inquisition and appropriate his property after his execution or exile, and the duty of the Austrians to support the Nazi party).   

The following statements of the pope John Paul II (from 1 through 4) describe his expectations concerning the work of moral theologians and optimal behavior of his believers [John Paul II Veritatis Splendor §109.2–§113.1 762–765].

1) In conjunction with the “biblical and dogmatic theology” and with the means of scientific reflection, the moral theologians should “elicit the response” of man, which he, “within a community of salvation,” must give to the call of God, and to continue the complete surveillance of the conscience and thinking of the believers.

Elicitation of the programmed response of man is the subject of the state politics, e.g., political sociology, and the traditional concern for the political structures, which control the group conscience within the totalitarian states. In conjunction with the task of “vigilance” over the conscience of the subjects, the papal expectations disclose the essence of the Magisterium – the ideological and controlling machine created after the pattern provided by the heathen Roman Empire, which, in general, does not differ from the ideology–maintaining structures of the totalitarian regimes.

2) The criteria by which moral theology should evaluate the suitability of the behavioral and natural sciences for the tasks of moral theologians incorporate decisions of two primary problems – discernment of the good and the evil and conditions of eternal life.

If to recall that the pope at any time can modify or change into the opposite the meaning of vice and virtue, it means that the selection of results of research should be consistent with the adopted methods and helpful for the objectives of the theologians: the moral theologians themselves are programmed to function in the strictly determined directions.

3) The moral theologians have the “grave duty to train the faithful” how to discern good and evil and the “grave duty” to train the faithful and their future pastors (through seminaries and faculties of theology) in the teaching of the Magisterium and to provide the example of loyalty to the dogmatic and moral teaching of the Magisterium.

Through the training of the faithful and their pastors–superiors–directors, the papal establishment reproduces itself; the demand to be an example of loyalty reminds the Aquinas’ description of the perfect papal office.

4) The faithful should not act “without following the teachings of the Magisterium,” and any contradiction to the teaching of “the Church’s Pastors” is not a legitimate expression of the religious freedom.

If to unwrap the essence behind the soft words, the papal “Church’s pastors” have the same “grave duties” to evaluate compliance with the papal faith as their precursors – the medieval inquisitors – did.

It is also noteworthy that the referred subchapters of John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor stress importance of the learning of and following to the teaching of the Magisterium, the papal church, and the church’s “Pastors” and do not mention the learning of and following to the Gospels of Lord God Jesus Christ. As soon as Aquinas’ political theology still is the official doctrine of the papal establishment, it looks like new generations of “the faithful” along with their “pastors” have the same old spiritual milk for the small undeveloped souls: the “splendid truth” of the Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology elaborated by the previous generations of the philosophizing theologians continues to sustain the papal values.

For instance,

–– the doctrine of the absolute obedience underlies the directive to act according to the instructions of the Magisterium without freedom to discuss the opinions of “the Church’s Pastors.” This directive is consistent with the Aquinas’ assertion of the special unerring perfection of members of the papal office and unreserved obedience of the papal subjects as well as with dictum of Ignatius of Loyola to put aside “all our own judgments” and obey in everything to “the hierarchical Church,” to approve and praise the decrees and conduct of the papal authorities, to “maintain a right mind in all things” with such obedience that a “Church militant” should see the white as the black if “the hierarchical Church so stipulates” [Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises §352–365 in: Personal Writings 356–358]*7*

–– the expectations to enrich the papal faith through the scientia divina, or the same heretical practice to put the imaginary world of political theology elevated to the rank of human science at the place of the words of  God

–– total surveillance over the conscience of the faithful with the following corrections by the Magisterium; such ‘surveillance → correction’ means deprivation of freedom of conscience, thinking, and choice

–– acceptance of the natural and other sciences as the source of theological concepts provides a possibility to modernize the outdated images created by the previous generations of philosophizing theologians with the guesses of contemporary researchers; however, as soon as human sciences are not able to penetrate the realm of God, they produce only figments of imagination.

Therefore, the same deadly cycle of the heathen interactive theology continues:


                   …imagination –– philosophical speculations –– interactive theology –– imagination…


Veritatis Splendor contains some revealing statements, which illustrate the nuances of the contemporary role of moral theologians and indicate the increased significance of the Magisterium. For example, the papal institute of theologians remains responsible for

a/ influence on the mind of the faithful through arrangement of the particular body of the knowledge that should become the foundation, provide the motivation of behavior, and facilitate control over the subjects (the teaching of the Magisterium)

b/ finding of new methods of control over the conscience with an assistance of the natural and behavioral sciences

This particular papal directive resembles the works of Roger Bacon (the thirteenth century) who believed that according to metaphysic, “the conclusions of the other sciences” must be assembled into moral science and become the principles of moral philosophy [Bacon 83].

If to recall that the natural and behavioral sciences constructed many of their concepts upon the value–neutral experiments on laboratory animals (e.g., rats and monkeys), it might be assumed that the contemporary papal theologians in their comprehension of the human nature and human establishments would not deviate from the Plato–Aristotle’s bee–hive concept of the community–owner of animal/man. Therefore, their vision of a human being cannot be different from the vision of the scientists who make their conclusion concerning men on the basis of the data obtained as the result of experiments on the laboratory animals: rats, mice, dogs, monkeys, and other victims of ancient Hippocrates the father of medicine’s misconception based on deification of the beasts.

c/ enrichment of the training, which should transform human beings into the absolutely obedient subjects

d/ elaboration of the ideological foundation for expansion of the papal influence on the world.

Therefore, in accordance with the purposes of the Magisterium, the papal officials have


1/ to program the conscience

2/ to train the faithful subjects to act according to the program

3/ with the assistance of the natural and behavioral sciences,
to control the compliance of actions of the papal subjects with the program.


Another noticeable statement of the pope John Paul II: the first time in the history, the Magisterium has described in detail “the fundamental elements” of its teaching, or the “Christian moral” [John Paul II Veritatis Splendor §115.1, §110.2 763, 767].

In fact, the Christian teachings (including moral) had been granted by Lord God Jesus Christ and disseminated by His Apostles: it exists almost two thousand years. The first version of Magisterium was formed in the time of Origen and Augustine (the third–fifth centuries), about fifteen centuries ago. If it took so much time for the Magisterium to “set forth” their teaching in its fundamentals, it is anybody’s guess how much time the moral theologians would need to realize the pope’s expectations and to accomplish their “loyal assent, both internal and external, to the Magisterium’s teaching” [John Paul II Veritatis Splendor §110.2 763]. Probably, it would take less time, because all that they need is to ascend to their own creation.

Besides, the pope’s definition leaves some questions unanswered, for example, (a, b, c)

a/ what is the essence of the Magisterium’s teaching? If this teaching just has been set forth in its fundamentals, experiences the “loyal assent,” and still needs to be developed, it should be different from both – the already existing Christian teachings and the already existing papal teaching. Indeed, if the Council already confirmed the pope’s titles (e.g., “the father and teacher of all Christians” and “the supreme teacher of the universal church”) [in: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 528, 869], such “the supreme teacher” surely should have some new teaching before the “fundamentals” set up by the Magisterium in the A.D. twentieth century

b/ if the papacy still claims on the title “church” for papal establishment, where the responsibilities before God? According to the pope, the moral theologian is expected to cooperate with the “hierarchical Magisterium,” to work in “vital connection with biblical and dogmatic theology,” have “scientific reflection,” and never forget that he is “a member of the People of God” [John Paul II Veritatis Splendor §110.2, §111.1 763–764].

Although the description of the papal expectations mentions even such details as the hierarchy of the Magisterium (which places the moral theologian into the Aristotelian universal ‘master––slave’ pattern precisely tuned for the needs of the papal hierarchy), there is no one word concerning the moral theologian’s responsibilities before God.

c/ what are the expected results? The theologian’s insight and fruits of research are the source of “enrichment” for the Church and faith and should not be a “collection of his own personal ideas” [John Paul II Redemptor Hominis §19.4; Veritatis Splendor §109.3 84, 762–763].

This particular definition links the imagination of a moral theologian to the already existing imaginary world of the Aquinas’ political theology – interactive dream world of philosophizing diviners.

Indeed, some of the contemporary papal theologians openly acknowledge that the roots of theology are “fundamentally in imaginative constructions” and appeal to the others to “take control” of their own “theological activity” and construct the “concepts and images of God and the world” deliberately [Kaufman ref. and qtd. in: Winquist 76]. Among similar revelations, is a definition of theology as “a public enterprise” [Haight 233]. This “enterprise” is open even for mathematical games; for instance,  in The Papers for the Symposium for the Future of Catholic Theology, professor David Tracy mentions the Hans–Georg Gadamer’s model of “the ‘game’ of conversation” in connection with the interpretation of “the Christian tradition” and religion [Tracy 38–41].

Furthermore, some Catholic theologians continue to share the Roger Bacon’s attachment for mathematics as to the prior science [Bacon 50–52] and discard two self–evident axioms:

1/ the roots of such an attachment are in Pythagorean and Gnostic doctrines, which are heresy for the Christians internal

2/ the primitive language of mathematical symbols is not adequate to the theological knowledge.

It looks like the referred above definitions of theology (and especially, as “a public enterprise” [Haight 233]) reflect the actual intra–hierarchical understanding of theology: the papal theology is the servant of the papal church, “imaginative constructions,” which “enrich” the papal church and papal faith. At the same time, the papal theology is the public enterprise for all those who are not afraid to participate in the deeds of the papal hierarchy. Therefore, the figments of theologian’s imagination must fit the already existing shared world and be compiled in accordance with the rules of existing game – Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology.

So, how what are the inner features of this world of papal theological games?

Avery R. Dulles writes about the following features of the contemporary papal theologians and their assemblies (1, 2, 3):

1/ The different theological schools lost consensus in the theological matters and civility of discussions: the opponents attempt to discredit one another, while they lack the common goals, norms, and language, and endanger preservation of the very nature of the papal church as “a communion.” At the same time, the different liberal and radical groups within the papal church, which should be “a single ecclesial body,” form coalitions.

Obviously, the described process of disbanding (absence of the common purpose and language, the struggle among sects) does not differ from the process of dissolution of political parties and other establishments, which have lost the meaning of their existence.

2/ The neo–scholastics protect the “quasi–canonical status” of the Aristotelian concepts, which they identify as the “Catholic faith” and oppose theology based on the Scriptures and the Church Fathers.

Therefore, some contemporary papal theologians realize that the “Catholic faith” based on the Aristotelian concepts is the opposite of the Christian dogma based on the Scriptures, and some of them – the neo–scholastics – oppose the authority of the Scriptures and the words of God. Such opposition and the discord within the institute of theologians, which is intended to be the “single body” (in fact, the brain) of the papal establishment, is the main fruit harvested for the centuries of absorption of heathen philosophy and other heresies into Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology/official doctrine of the papal church of Rome.

3) The authority of the Magisterium, “some restrictions on the freedom of theologians,” and permission to publish books (the papal office’s censorship) are the means to subdue and restrain the uncontrollable theologians [Dulles x, 110, 111, 113, 114–117].

The list of the offered restrictive measures also contains “warnings” against the books, which contain the “dangerous” doctrines [Dulles 116]. It looks like these warnings are intended to supplement the Index of prohibited books published by the contemporary Inquisition, which now is known as “the Holy Office”: for instance, in the end of the twentieth century, the Inquisition still served the restriction of freedom of the papal subjects.

In addition, the described by Avery R. Dulles mutiny among the papal theologians indicates the absence of the Holy Spirit Who unifies all disciples of Lord God Jesus Christ in love to God and to one another and Who teaches all the knowledge of God {John 14:15–17, 23–26; 17:21–26; Romans 5:5; Galatians 5:19–26}. Evidently, it should be another deity that guides the theological speculations. Perhaps it is the Jacques Maritain’s “secret, mysterious and holy substance in this great machinery of logic” [Maritain 92], which originated Aristotle–inspired Aquinas’ political theology; perhaps, it is “the mind and spirit of St. Thomas,” which already has the experience of guidance of the papal subjects (the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which was convoked to define the doctrine and to reform the papal church, proclaimed that the Council is guided “by the mind and spirit of St. Thomas” [Walz ref. in: New Catholic Encyclopedia 14:134]).

Clement of Alexandria compared philosophers with the maenads: according to ancient myth, the insane maenads tore their god Dionysus in pieces; the philosophers did the same with the true knowledge of the Logos – the Word–Wisdom of God. For Clement, philosophy was the handmaid of theology [e.g., ref. in: Pannenberg 7–8, 10]; now, after centuries of the maenad rites of philosophizing theologians, the remains of theology are assembled into the servant of the papal church.

Under the described by Avery R. Dulles conditions, there is no protection against empty words, which would result in the wrath of God {Ephesians 5:6–11; Colossians 2:8}. Any idea of any high–ranked papal theologian might become the article of Catholic faith that the papal subjects must observe (for example, such as Aquinas’ justification of mandatory execution of the relapsed heretics because of the inability of the papal church to imitate the mercy of God [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica II–II Q.11 a4 ro1]).

The “hierarchical Magisterium” and membership in “the People of God” reflect the framework of the Aquinas’ perfect community – staircase of the different levels of closeness to “divinely appointed functionary” – the pope who equates own laws with the Law of God and, as Cardinal Bellarmine believes, has the authority to change the meaning of vice and the meaning of virtue for his subjects.

The papal characteristics of the teaching role of the Magisterium prompt the question concerning practical results of the education: which kind of theological knowledge the Catholics receive under the supervision of the Magisterium?

For instance, the Ian McCrimmon’s book 12 Questions for Theologians: Five–dimensional Space–time Mass published in 1992, obviously pretends to have some connections with theology, at least through its title; it re–iterates some common Catholic beliefs and conveys the loyalty to the pope. If to take into consideration an assertion that theological doctrines do not leave any place for original thinking [Dulles ix], it could be concluded that the Ian McCrimmon’s book expresses the typical point of view and reveal the thoughts of the contemporary papal subjects, thus, the book might illustrate the results of theological education headed by the Magisterium.

In particular, the referred book [McCrimmon 6–7, 18]

a/ utilizes the educational experience of the Jesuits in China: it introduces the “male principle” and “female principle” into the Catholic terminology

b/ conveys “revelations” borrowed from the doctrine of the re–incarnation: as it is stated in the book, the spirit of the deceased returns “through the fifth dimension and is born again in the flesh”

c/ communicates the regrets concerning the reformists in the papal hierarchy who destroyed “a huge amount” of value for the believers

d/ re–iterates the old assertion concerning the “mystical power” granted to “Peter and his successors”

e/ declares that the papal church will survive in the Magisterium and “in the office and person of the pope.”

It is obvious that all heresies incorporated into Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology and forced into the mind of papal subjects could not voluntarily disappear or destroy themselves with time. For that reason, in the referred Ian McCrimmon’s book, the Plato–Gnostic concept of re–incarnation (assumed by the pope Nicolas I (858–867) who asserted himself as the re–incarnation of St. Peter the Apostle) is repeated with the contemporary pseudo–scientific terms (e.g., “the fifth dimension”) and expanded from the limited circle of the Aquinas’ “divine persons” onto “the spirit of deceased.” Existence of the “mystical power” in the pope’s possession never had been confirmed, for example, in the same manner as the Spirit of God confirmed the message of St. Paul the Apostle {1 Corinthians 2:1–16}. The only power that the papacy had confirmed was the power to send people to death for their disobedience to the pope or for rejection of Catholicism. The declaration of expected survival of the papal church in the Magisterium, in the papal office, and in the pope’s person discloses that the papal church has no connection with God.

In particular, the head of the Christian Church is God, and only God Himself is the source of life for His Church. The God’s words are unchangeable; the faith in God is indestructible.

Consequently, the establishment, which undergoes reforms (especially because of destruction of the values held to be the subject of faith), struggles for survival, and expects to survive as an office or as a head of the hierarchy, has nothing from God and nothing in common with God’s teachings.

Indeed, each written or spoken thought inevitably conveys the framework, in which it was conceived; in this particular case, the framework is heathen political theology and heresy incompatible with the Christian teachings.

The consequences of constant reforms of the papal church might be also seen if to analyze the inference of the contemporary researcher, which he made concerning the connection of Fascism and Catholicism:  “Christianity has been adaptable enough to accommodate itself to all main Western ideologies” [Eatwell 175].

The referred Roger Eatwell’s opinion allows two conclusions:

1/ in the mind of some researchers, Christianity is inseparable from Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology – the official doctrine of the papal church of Rome, although in fact, the Christian teachings and Aquinas’ political theology are neither compatible nor comparable. Such inseparability is the consequence of two phenomena:

a/ the continuous papal pretense to speak and to act on behalf of the whole Christendom

b/ the pretense on the name of Christian Church in spite of all the reforms, which substituted the heathenism and heresy for the very essence of the Christian teachings (for instance, the papal laity receives the communion with one element (as Manicheans) instead of the Holy Eucharist established by God Himself {Luke 22:17–20; 1 Corinthians 10:16–17; 11:23–29})

2/ the continuous papal pretense to speak and to act on behalf of the Christendom and the continuous presentation of the papal establishment as the Christian Church are the greatest crimes of the papacy against God and man. This false pretense of the papacy and the misuse of the name of Lord God Jesus Christ by the papal “hierarchical church” make possible the association of Christianity with Aquinas’ political theology and with the papal establishment that cooperated with Fascism and Nazism.

As soon as the Aquinas’ political doctrine is not consistent with the Christian teachings, some other papal expectations concerning the abilities of the moral theologians and consequences of their constructions might be inadequate to the reality. For instance, as it could be inferred from the history,

1) the morality and the ability to discern the good and the evil were and still are the matter of concern for the papal hierarchy and community. Indeed, it is not possible to distinguish the good and the evil and to restrict the evil (which always turns against those who unleashed it) if the Absolute Truth of Christianity is superseded with the heathen philosophical constructions, and the Aristotelian “common good” of the slave–owning society took the place of the Absolute Good. The actual history of the papacy provides the compelling illustrations of the consequences of the inability to discern the good and the evil (e.g., cooperation with Fascism and Nazism).

2) the speculations of Thomas Aquinas and other papal theologians 

a/ resulted in the prohibition to read the Bible for laity

b/ justified the absolution of the mortal sins committed according to the commands of the superior

c/ discontinued the sacred tradition of the order of Eucharist, established by God Himself; instead, according to the Aquinas’ philosophical fantasies, the laity began to receive the communion with one element (that reiterates the heresy of Manicheans condemned by the Roman pope in the fifth century, before the Great Schism)

–– were assembled into “deprivitized” political theology, in which the concept of community of salvation supplanted the Christian dogma of personal salvation*12*.

The concept of community of salvation, or “deprivitized” salvation–as–the–public--matter, might be not only an inference from the studies of those medieval theologians who ascribed the notion of impossibility of immortality of individual soul to Averroës (ibn Rushd) – the Arabic philosopher and commentator of Aristotle’s works. During many centuries, the papal subjects deprived the different–minded (the Greeks, the Jews, the Moors, and other non–Catholics) of their life, freedom, good repute, and material wealth. Eventually, the superiors/shepherds deprived the papal subjects from the Cup of Eucharist – the Holy Communion established by Lord God Jesus Christ Himself. Then, they took away the individual salvation (as salvation of each human soul that is solely responsible for own the deeds and sins), which is the promise granted by God.

Such chain of deprivations logically completes the Aristotelian concept of man as a part/property of the whole.

In particular, the main feature, which differentiates free man from a slave, is the responsibility for own deeds. The concept of unreserved obedience to the superior and the “genuine loyalty” to the pope as the condition of eternal salvation deprives man–part of the papal community of two things that discriminate freeman from a slave and a person from a social animal: freedom of choice and responsibility for own actions.  A being deprived of individuality becomes a part of a herd, therefore, loses the right to be a person – individual human soul who obtains salvation according to the will of God.

In general, the history of the papal Church of Rome and amassed “fruits” of reasoning of the papal theologians illustrate the consequent phases of destruction of the Christian foundation of the papal establishment: the overall dynamic of the process is the thunder–like crescendo of disintegration (1 through 4):

1)  the vast majority of the Catholics had been deprived of the source of true knowledge of God: in 1229, the Inquisition in Toulouse announced prohibition of the Bible: the Bible became the forbidden book for the laity; Aquinas’ political theology casts the papal subjects into the heathen world of imagination with the man–made substitute for God.

2) the thirteenth century; Aquinas’ political theology deprives the papal subjects of any moral responsibility for the sins committed according to the commands of their superiors and of personal responsibility for (and anticipation of) personal salvation of the soul. At this stage, the hierarchy

            –– destroyed the original values and morality based on the commandments of God

            –– implanted new morality, values, and criteria intended to serve the purposes and needs of the papacy

3) the sixteenth century; the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which was guided by “the mind and spirit of St. Thomas” and which was summoned to define the Catholic doctrine and to reform the papal church [Walz ref. in: New Catholic Encyclopedia 14:134], at session 21, of June 16, 1562, made two statements (a and b), which are sacrilegious attack against the Holy Spirit of God and which express the manifest contradiction to the most sacred tradition and teachings of the Christian Church. The papal Council

a/  declared that the “priests who are in mortal sin” still discharge their duties “by the power of the Holy Spirit” received in ordination [Decrees of Ecumenical Councils 242, 707].

The Council of Trent’s conclusion is based on the following Aquinas’ assertions:

–– “members of Christ by the actual union of charity” are free from mortal sins [Summa Theologica III Q.8 a3 ro2; Aquinas’ “members of Christ” are the members of the papal hierarchy]

–– “all the consecrations of the Church are immovable” and the sacramental power received by consecration remains in men as long as they live, even if they become heretics or schismatics [Summa Theologica II–II Q.39 a3].

In this case, the papal church directly contradicts the Apostle of God:

–– according to St. John the Apostle, man who commits a sin “is of devil” {1 John 3:4–10}

–– according to the Council of Trent, those who commit a mortal sin (or as the Apostle wrote, are “of devil”) can act with “the power of the Holy Spirit.” Evidently, the Council of Trent assumes that the power of God can be bound by men in such a degree that even man in a state of mortal sin, who has rejected God (otherwise he would not be able to commit mortal sin), still possesses the power received when he was ordained. It means that with this assertion, the Council of Trent

1/ incorporates into papal dogma–Catholicism the heathen belief in the ability of man to bind and control deity with magic rituals or rites of worship

2/  ascribes to the man “of devil” the ability to act “by the power of the Holy Spirit”  that is the sacrilege. 

b/ denied that the Holy Communion with both elements is a “divine commandment”; the papal Council asserted that the custom to use both elements had been changed “in the course of time,” and condemned those who deny that “the whole Christ is received when Holy Communion is received under the form of bread alone” [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 726–727; Documents of the Council of Trent (in Latin ref. and qtd. in: Hughes, Philip 327–328)].

Aquinas’ philosophical speculations inspired by Aristotle deprived the Catholic laity of the sacred tradition of the Eucharist – communion with two elements (bread and fruit of vine – in: Matthew 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:17–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26). 

At this stage, the papal subjects were denied the access to the Chalice of Salvation given by God Himself: the papal hierarchy, which replaced the Christian dogma with political theology and the word of God with the Aquinas’ political theology, became incapable of keeping the manifest appearance of Christianity

4) the twentieth century, “deprivitization” of theology deprived the papal subjects of the expectation of personal salvation promised by God. Ultimately, instead of God and the eternity with God, the papal subjects have  

–– the deified supreme teacher and shepherd standing at “the place of God”

–– the duty of unreserved obedience, which includes obligations to obediently commit mortals sins (e.g. murder) according to the order of the superior

–– the imaginary world of political theology with the phantom of the worldwide domination and absolute secular and spiritual power of the pope

–– the myth of “deprivatized” salvation with the herded way of existence in the after–life.

Would any Christian or any human being with the normal reasoning accept all these myths offered by the papacy to its unreservedly obedient subjects?

Would any Christian accept all the volumes of political theology written by the papal theologians in exchange for just one word spoken by God?

All that started with deprivation of the words of God, is finished with ruin. For instance, the history illustrates the results of continuous intervention in the affairs of the states and effectiveness of the spiritual power of the pope as the “common father” and teacher of “all Christians.” In particular,

 a/ the short “vitality” of the pope’s power as the chief and supreme judge of all nations and all kingdoms, even at the time of the Holy Empire; the religious wars and the Reformation, which started the Western Schism, eventually terminated the unreserved papal secular and spiritual power over Europe

b/ the prohibition to read the Bible (for all laity, in 1229, [Grun 168, Trager 108]) resulted in catastrophic impediment of development of the European civilization. Gar Baybrook names the suppression of the Bible, acceptance of the heathen beliefs as the articles of the Catholic faith, and “the dictatorial methods” of the papal hierarchy as the reasons why the history of humankind has “the Dark Ages” [Baybrook 427–428].

c/ deprivation of the true knowledge of God, lust for the power, and heathen philosophy accepted as the means of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures produced the Inquisition, the Crusades, corruption of the morality, the concept of unreserved obedience to the deified pope, and other heretical concepts of political theology. Corruption of theological thoughts and the substitution of Aquinas’ political theology for the Christian teachings resulted in acceptance of Marxism, Bolshevism, and Nazism, which sustained the next cycle of destruction, during which the totalitarian states of the twentieth century consumed innumerable number of human lives; so, the Dark Ages were just a humble beginning.

Evidently, the papal spiritual power exists only because the papacy associates its faith – Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology – with the Christian teachings, and because the pope pretends to act on behalf of God. Today, after the papacy had lost the direct and manifest access to the coercive and oppressive state structures, the papal power is realized through the control and re–programming of the mind and of the conscience of the papal subjects – politicians, educators, researchers, artists, and other people in a position of any authority. The papacy continues to exercise its apparent spiritual authority and the hidden influence on the political affairs of the states through access to education and charitable activities. For instance, the papacy declares that by teaching the people to act for the sake of the common good, it prepares “good citizens for each state” [John Paul II Redemptor Hominis §17.7 77].

In this case, the papal hierarchy follows the teaching of its actual main theologian – Aristotle for the sake of own common good and with the purpose to acquire the absolute power. In particular, according to Aristotle, the education of citizens must be inseparable for the functions of state; otherwise, the state would discontinue its existence, because of transformation into the institution of those who have the teaching authority. Thus, the papacy inevitably would attempt to make loyal papal subject from each person who had gone through the Catholic educational institutions. Consequently, such a person might be lost for the state if this state is independent of or opposing to the papal influence.



Some Secular Affairs


In any time – in the time of the Vatican, as well as at the time of the Holy Roman Empire, – the papal intervention into the secular affairs had specific results and sent the unambiguous messages concerning the deadly consequences of falsification of Christian teachings and the destructive potential of the papal “hierarchical church.” The following example from the recent history not only illustrates such a result of falsification of the knowledge of God as the loss of ability to discern the good and the evil; it also reveals the essence of the papal teaching: the images embodied into the articles of faith and intended to control thinking, conscience, and behavior of the subjects.

The Vatican concluded the Concordat with Nazi Germany and, during World War II, established the diplomatic relations with Japan. According to some researchers, eighteen concordats of the pope Pius IX (1922–1939) facilitated “the rise of dictators” [Wills xvii]. The directives of Cardinal Theodor Innitzer (archbishop of Vienna, who as any member of the papal hierarchy would not act without approval of his superior – in the case of Cardinal, the superior obviously is the Roman pope) and Declaration of the Austrian Episcopacy disclose the actual attitude of the papal hierarchy toward Nazi Germany:

a) March 12, 1938, three days after the Anschluss and after visiting Adolf Hitler, the archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer directed the papal clergy and the faithful Catholics

–– to unconditionally support “the great German state and the Fuhrer” because “the Fuhrer” has “the blessing of Providence” and it is the “divine idea” to realize the unity of all nations

–– to encourage membership in the “German Reich’s youth organizations”

–– to “serve in the best way the good of the Reich, the nation, and the fatherland.”  

At the time when Cardinal Theodor Innitzer issued his directives, it was already possible to infer from the Nietzsche’s writings, Adolf Hitler’s book and speeches, and the Nazi state laws and policies that the “divine idea” of realization of the “unity of all nations” includes

a/ subjugation and enslaving by the means of war and terror

b/ then, appropriation of labor and resources of the conquered non–Aryan nations

c/ then, termination of the “weary human chattel” or unneeded “surplus” of human beings.

The reference to such a Future of humankind as to the “divine idea” might be consequence only of one of two things: either the Cardinal’s deity–source of the “divine idea” is the pagan god of death (e.g., the Nietzsche’s Dionysus) or the Cardinal commits blasphemy against Christian God.

b) March 18, 1938, the Austrian Episcopate granted the “heartiest blessing” to “the National–Socialist movement” in its struggle against “all–destroying atheistic bolshevism” and asserted as “a national duty” of “all believing Christians” to vote for “the German Reich” in a plebiscite on Anschluss [La Documentation Catholique ref. and qtd. in: Passelecq and Suchecky 51–52, 285].

The Adolf Hitler’s Reich was destined to weaken bolshevism/communism and fight it with the same methods, which communists employed against the Russian population: death, forced labor and death camps, hunger, slavery, and idolatry. However, only the habitual indiscretions of political theology (the papacy intended to utilize the same evil, which initially was fully tested during the Crusades and sack of Constantinople) and lust for the world domination could encourage the members of the papal hierarchy to accept and bless the methods offered by Nazism and continue to use such wordings as the “believing Christians.” Other opinions might facilitate comprehension of the actual roots of the benevolence of the papal hierarchy toward Nazism. For instance (1 through 2):

1)  James M. Rhodes asserts that Nazism was “mutant, secular variety” of the movement, which unified the crusaders, flagellants, and other “medieval fanatics” [Rhodes 29]

This opinion connects Nazism with those who committed atrocities of the Crusades and with those who perverted human nature and destroyed themselves with self–tortures and divination. If to assume that all insane things come from the same source – the evil created by the insane mind that rejected God*8*, Nazism, indeed, crowns

a/ the centuries of falsification of the word of God

b/ corruption of the human nature and enslaving of the mind committed with Aquinas’ political theology

c/ intentionally cultivated mental disorders and insanity committed with the Loyola’s training based on mandatory blasphemies against Lord God Jesus Christ and self–tortures in the likeness of heathen diviners

2) Guenter Lewy asserts that the “German Catholicism” expected that the “organized Catholicism” would become the partner of the Third Reich and the Nazi party would be purged of the “anti–Catholic elements” [Lewy 151].

Such expectations remind persecution of the non–Catholics practiced during the centuries, especially toward the Jews and the Moors, and historical conversion of Jesuit missionaries into Confucianism when they attempted to submit China to the pope. The Jesuits of the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries overestimated willingness and readiness of the papacy to accept the open conversion for the sake of dominion over China. Yet, after historical humiliation of the popes (France) and complete deprivation of the secular power, the papacy became ready to discard the last apparent connection with Christianity and affiliate itself with the Nazi movement, which did not conceal its purposes and the methods to achieve them. In particular, writings and speeches of two Catholic clergymen illustrate the degree of knowledge and completeness of the acceptance of the Hitler’s acts and plans by the members of the papal hierarchy:

a)  Catholic priest Senn named Hitler “the tool of God, called upon to overcome Judaism”

b)  Catholic Army Bishop Rarkowski recited the prayer: “Bless Oh God, our Fuhrer and Supreme Commander in all tasks placed upon him.” After invasion in Russia, Rarkowski proclaimed: Hitler is “the savior and champion of Europe,” who “discovered the life principle of the German people,” embodies them “by his acts,” and has to perform the tasks similar to those of the Teutonic Knights (in the thirteenth century, the order of Teutonic Knights with sword and fire attempted to convert the Russian Orthodox Christians into Catholicism). Then, in his pastoral letter (1942) Bishop Rarkowski explained to the German Catholics that behind the commands of Hitler “the Fuhrer and Supreme Commander” – whatever the commands are – “stands God Himself with His will and command” [Senn and Rarkowski ref. and qtd. in: Lewy 239–242, 279].

Therefore, it might be inferred that Catholic Bishop Rarkowski and Catholic clergyman Senn successfully continued the rich tradition of blasphemies against God by mentioning Hitler in connection with God and asking the blessing of God for the Nazi’s crimes against humanity. Simultaneously, they disclosed their reverence to their superior by adding Hitler the Fuhrer to the pantheon of the supreme beings such as the “Supreme Teacher” the pope. The ability of Catholic Bishop Rarkowski to discern the good and the evil, thus, to foresee the consequences of the acts of men, and his meaning of “life principle of the German people” might be inferred from the historical fact that Hitler’s acts culminated in

–– Nazi genocide, which resulted in assassination of 14 millions of “racial inferiors”

––54.8 millions death of people from 57 nations during World War II (estimated, because there is no means to count multitudes of the victims)

–– immeasurable suffering of countless human beings during all years of Nazi plague [Trager 893, 894].

Besides, if the Catholic bishop of the twentieth century still cherishes memory of the crimes committed in the thirteenth century by Teutonic Knights who continued the traditions of the Crusaders and disseminated the papal faith by sword and fire – by murder, tortures, pillage, and other crimes against humanity – there is no reason to assume that anything ever can be changed in the outlook of the members of the papal hierarchy.

For instance, does the world have any assurance that if today another Hitler arises and promises the papacy world domination, or the current re–incarnation–successor of Innocent III decides to inspire new Crusade (for instance, against those Christians who do not submit themselves to pope and do not substitute idol–worship for Christianity), members of the papal hierarchy would not praise and glorify them and cover their crimes with the name of Christian God?

Guenter Lewy asserts that the declaration of the German Catholic Bishops, which allowed the Catholics to take the oath of unreserved and unrestricted obedience to Hitler (because of sophisticated subterfuge with the theological definition of the oath), “paved the way” to blind obedience that made possible the Nazi crimes [Lewy 240]. 

Consequently, some papal subjects obediently followed their superiors; they considered [ref. and qtd. in: Chidester 499–500]

–– Nazism – as the recovery of “primeval powers” of “German blood and Christianity” (Catholic theologian Karl Adam)

–– “the united forces of the National Socialist state and Catholic Christianity” – as the foundation of the Hitler’s Reich (Catholic periodical Reich und Kirche)

––  faith in the Hitler’s Reich – as “the German form of Christianity” (Catholic theologian Walter Grundman).

The referred opinions of the Nazi–papal theologians illustrate the consequences of the Origen–Augustine–Aquinas’ practice of misinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures and the Christian dogma.

For any Christian, even slightest suggestion of any connection between Christianity and Nazism is the profanity.

The papal hierarchy not only bestowed its blessings on the most inhumane doctrine in the history of mankind; it identified Nazism as own likeness, e.g., in the referred above Walter Grundman’s definition of faith in the Hitler’s Reich as “the German form of Christianity.”

In fact, “the German form of Christianity” has nothing in common with the teachings of Lord God Jesus Christ; it is an example of misuse of the name of God to which the papacy became accustomed in such a degree that applied it to cover the arc–evil embodied into Nazism.

However, not all members of the papal hierarchy practiced the unreserved obedience in the Aquinas’ style and discarded their conscience. God Who lives in each human soul preserved many Catholics from cooperation with Fascism and Nazism. The history cherishes memory of the Catholic martyrs who ended their lives in Nazi concentration camps and prisons because of their resistance to the Nazi state.

The imperial politics practiced by the papacy during more than eleven centuries, facilitated comprehension of the strategic objectives, the meaning, and potential of Nazism, which, in fact, pursued the same old dream of the domination over the world, promised by the papacy to the Germans centuries ago [e.g., Luther 92–95]. The old phantom of the desperately wanted absolute power also could suppress the ability of the papal hierarchy to discern the arch–evil behind the façade of the Fascist and Nazi states. Perhaps, the Austrian Catholic leaders through the mystical–political imagination “prophesied” the reincarnation of the Holy Roman Empire into the Hitler’s Reich and anticipated worldwide domination, which the papacy would obtain trough the German Nazis. Ultimately, the high ranking German members of the papal hierarchy are responsible for the political–social–religious climate in which German officials Wilhelm Kube and Robert Ley could liken Adolf Hitler to Christ and the others could identify Adolf Hitler with “the mouthpiece of German Providence” [Note in: Hitler 489–490].

Despite the definite suggestions of the U.S. and British governments, the pope Pius XII refused to condemn Nazi Germany: the Vatican already had the positive experience of corroboration with Fascism, and the papal Church of Rome became “a buttress” of the Fascism in Italy. In particular, through the Concordat of 1929 with Fascist Italy under the Mussolini’s control, the papacy gained at least some of the temporal power completely lost in 1870. By the authority of Fascist state, the Vatican had been granted the status of the independent state, access to control of education, and the possibility to expand the Catholic Action [ref. and qtd. in: Encyclopedia of the Vatican and Papacy 292–293].

Another Catholic and Mussolini’s ally, Adolf Hitler, paid “the compulsory church taxes” and occasionally attended the service at the Catholic Church, although, in private conversations he

a/ referred to the Vatican with such wordings as “satanic superstition” of the “hypocritical priests” concerned only with “ranking in the money”

b/ revealed his intention of “stamping out Christianity” and getting rid of any political authority, which the Vatican would seek in Germany and in the conquered by Nazis states [Adolf Hitler ref. and qtd. in: Encyclopedia of the Vatican and Papacy 199–201; qtd. 200]

c/ explained that “one is either a Christian or a German,” and cannot be both, or, according to the Martin Bormann’s interpretation, “National socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable” [Adolf Hitler and Martin Bormann ref. and qtd. in: Chidester 496].

Obviously, Adolf Hitler and Martin Bormann had better understanding of Nazism and Christianity (they recognized their incompatibility) than the papal hierarchy under the authority of the “supreme shepherd” and infallible “universal teacher.” The habit to operate with the imaginary world of interactive theology had played the ruthless joke with the papal hierarchy: in addition to inability to discern good and evil, it resulted in the inability to operate adequately (according to the Law of God) within the real life and accomplish the real battle of the good with the evil.

To the contrary, the Greece still commemorates the “Oxi Day” – October 28, 1940, the day, when she rejected Fascism as incompatible with Christianity. Again, history repeated itself: the Nazis in the twentieth century treated Greece in the same fashion as the papacy in the thirteenth century treated the Byzantine Christians after sacrileges and murders in Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade (1204). When the government of Greece appealed to Nazi government in Berlin to restrain the appetites of Mussolini (one of the founding fathers of the Vatican) who already released in circulation the maps, where Greece was included in the “Italian Empire,” they received the order: Greece must submit herself to Italy. As Premier Minister of Greece Joannes Metaxas (1871–1941) interpreted the demands of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, Greece was expected to become a “voluntary servant.” Only wordings of Nazis are different from those of the Council of the Roman pope Innocent III (with the reference to “obedient sons” of the mother – “holy Roman church”) [in: Bitzes 66–69, 79; Canon 4 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) in: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 235–236]. 

Greece was not able to submit herself to Fascist Italy, substitute the idol–worship for Christianity, and participate in the crimes against humanity committed by Fascists and Nazis: there are things more dreadful than physical death. Although it was no chance to win the war against Italy and Germany, the Christian Church encouraged the Greek Christians to follow the greatest ideals of freedom and human dignity forgotten by many. Chrysanthos the Archbishop of Greece (in the time of World War II) blessed the Greek army to fight for “freedom and honor” and to prefer “noble death to the ugly life of servitude” [Chrysanthos the Archbishop of Greece, ref. and qtd. in: Bitzes 78–79]. The people of Greece preferred to pass the same old test, which separates the children of God from the enemies of God: the way of Christian Greece and the actions of the chief priest of the Greek Christian Church had been determined many centuries ago: the strength of those who are invincible in the power of spirit is God Himself, and their faith is the victory that overcomes the world {Habakkuk (Ambacum) 3:16–19; 1 John 5:4}.

As the result of her loyalty to the Christian Faith – the source of the main human ideals and virtues for the Christians – Greece suffered invasion of Fascist Italy (1940) and occupation by Nazi Germany (1941–1944). The Christian Church and her schools became the first target of the aggressors. The special units of Nazi state and army were appointed for appropriation and transportation into Germany the plundered resources of the occupied territories; distribution of these resources among Germany and its allies was also determined by the special directives of the Hitler’s headquarters. So, after invasion, Nazi Germany began planned destruction of Greece: “especially valuable” resources were taken by Germany; the remainder was given to Bulgaria and Italy [e.g., Fuehrer Directives… Nr. 37/39 VI.II.b, 44545/41 §7 1:22, 1:171]. As the result of Nazi occupation and pillage of Greece,

 – in January 1942, Greece suffered from the worst famine in her history (similarly to Ukraine  in 1930s, when Stalin organized the worst famine in the history of Ukraine with the intention to terminate the population that opposed to communism [Trager 817]) 

– during the Nazi occupation, Greece lost 13% of her population; 85% of survived children had tuberculosis; more than 50% of national wealth vanished; the infrastructure was completely destroyed [Bitzes 165; Greece: A Summary of Background Information 1, 2].

Analyzing the reasons, why Greece after World War II did not accept communism, John G. Bitzes writes that the Greeks have love of freedom, individualistic thinking, and the Greek Orthodox Church – all three “incompatible with communism” [Bitzes 166].

All three Greek treasures named by John G. Bitzes have one foundation: the Christian Faith that has protected and still protects the Christians from many disasters including submission to the papacy and both deadly plagues – Fascism and Communism.

The summary of the referred above “secular affairs” confirms the unambiguous in its clarity difference between the papal Church of Rome and the Christian Greek Church:


the Greek Christians preferred death to submission to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany


the papal Church of Rome cooperated with Fascism, accepted and blessed Nazism.


The different interpretation referred above historical events by the papal Church of Rome and by the Christian Greek Church, and consequently, the different actions of the papal officials and the Greeks, reveal the abyss between the Catholicism (that is Aristotle–Aquinas’ political ideology built upon heathen philosophy and falsification of the Holy Scriptures) and the Christianity.



Last Tribute to Thomas Aquinas


There is a story about the last days of Thomas Aquinas: he discontinued his work two months before his death and, in manifest resemblance of the Scriptures, hung up his writing instruments as the Jews in captivity hung up their lyres {Psalm 136(137):1–4}. Then, he evaluated his own works as “so much straw” in comparison with the vision and revelation he received [New Catholic Encyclopedia 14:109].

The ancient Israelites went into the Babylonian captivity for their wickedness and unfaithfulness to God {Ezekiel 39:23–24}; the images of straw/chaff signify deeds useless in the sight of God, futility of false knowledge, and powerlessness of the false of men before the truth of God.

For example, the Holy Scriptures refer to

1/ straw for bricks, which the Israelites had to make to build store–cities for the pharaoh {Exodus 1:11; 5:6–7}, where the mortal “god” of Egypt kept his possessions and especially, loot

2/ straw before the wind, mentioned by Job when he describes the wicked who do not wish to have the knowledge of the ways of God, because the knowledge of God is unprofitable for them {Job 21:14–15, 18}

3/ straw (useless in comparison with wheat) before the fire, which prophet Jeremiah mentions when he writes about the fire of the word of God and the wrath of God against the false prophets and priests who lead people astray by their lies, whom God promised to cover with the “perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten,” and who became the burden for the people – the burden, which God would cast away from His presence {Jeremiah 23:23–40}

4/ the sinners who “conceive chaff,” and “give birth to straw”; for whom the presence of God is the devouring fire that they would not survive {Isaiah 33:11–14}

5/ straw perishing in the flame as the likeness of those the unrighteous and arrogant, who call evil good, and the good evil, who put darkness at the place of light, who reject the Law of God and despise the word of God {Isaiah 5:20–24; Malachi 4:1}.

Only Thomas Aquinas can clarify, which precisely kind of straw he meant. Meanwhile, could someone to assume that Thomas Aquinas’ symbolic gesture and self–evaluation might indicate

            – either the apparent humility of a monk, the humility that masks the pride and ambitions of the philosophizing theologian, who envisions himself as capable of changing “water in wine” by applying heathen philosophy to the service of the papal faith, who makes corrections of the words of God and refers to the teaching of the Apostles of God as the “primitive teaching,” who has to gather the “obscure” truth from the Scriptures and make it digestible for the “simple” people, and who assumes the right to misinterpret decision of the Universal Christian Church

            – or the inner tragedy of the reasonable human being who served the evil instead of the good and in his last days, instantly comprehended the essence of his service and the actual meaning of his works?

Of these two possibilities, the former is less probable, because Aquinas was not able to continue his work. If the latter coincides with the reality, it could mean that Aquinas identified himself with the slave (the Jews in captivity)

a/ whose works built prosperity of the earthly god (straw for bricks to build the storehouses of Pharaoh)

b/ who rejected the words of God because they were unprofitable for his master (straw before the wind)

c/ who produced the deceit and false knowledge (useless straw before the fire) to satisfy demands of his masters.

Only God sees men’s hearts, knows their true intentions, determines value of their lives, and judges their thoughts. The people can judge only by the visible fruits – by the consequences of deeds, writings, doctrines, which they are able to discern. And from such limited point of view, Aquinas’ legacy includes

1/ transformation of the papal faith–Catholicism into heathen interactive theology constructed

a/ according to the precedents of misinterpretation of the word of God set out by Philo, Origen, and Augustine 

b/ with the methods of pagan philosophers

c/ upon the heresy – falsifications and misinterpretations of the Scriptures

2/ incorporation of the Manichean heresy into the papal dogma: communion with one element (bread) only and the perversion of the Perfected with their disdain for the natural way of life

3/ integration of the recommendations and concepts of the heathen philosophers intended for creation of the earthly empire into the heathen theological–social–political–ethical doctrine incompatible with Christianity, (which, nevertheless, was adopted by the papacy as the official doctrine of the papal Church of Rome because of the expectations to achieve the absolute power and world–wide domination)

4/ elaboration of the main pattern of slavery (the total control of a master over the life and well–being of a slave) into the virtue of the papal subjects in the attempt to provide the papacy with the solid indestructible (in their opinion) foundation for the absolute power

5/ elaboration of the Aristotle’s political design into the inhumane and based on slavery establishment, which had nothing in common with Christianity, yet, pretended to have the Christian faith and Christian Church of Rome as its own foundation and justification of existence

6/ justification of the heathen interactive theology modifiable by men, where the faith is open for adjustments in conformity with the current political needs and the latest development of the philosophical concepts. As the result, the laws, politics, policies, teaching (as well any article of faith or any of theological concepts, which underlie the laws, politics, morals, etc.) of the papal church of Rome became open to reforms–modifications in accordance with the current political circumstances or demands of the papal hierarchy.

Aquinas wrote at the time when the papacy achieved the peak of power. Consequently,

1. the Aquinas’ apparent purpose was the systematization of existing practices, their justification and arrangement into the doctrine capable of sustaining the papal pursuit of the global dominion and absolute power. The Aquinas’ doctrine – political theology – is based upon the papacy’s own experience and upon the Aristotelian concepts; it also integrated the laws, practices, techniques, and methods of pagan rulers, especially, the Roman emperors. The starting points of the basic Aristotelian political design, which Aquinas adapted to new settings and possibilities, included

a/  the concept of totally controllable social/political animal–man with the ‘master–→slave’ pattern as the means to secure the stability of an entire enterprise

b/ the concept of supremacy of the common good of the community over the good of its members

c/ the image of the establishment under the papal authority as the “perfect community” and the natural way of existence of men, which should make up for deficiencies of the human nature and subdue the hostile environment.

The Aquinas’ political theology provided the theoretical foundation for the transformation of the papal Church of Rome into the papal hierarchical church; it became the guide for the papal hierarchy in its struggle for the supremacy over all Christendom. Only with falsification of the Scriptures Aquinas was able to provide some kind of justification of the use of the imperial practices and philosophy of the slave–owners for the needs of the papacy. As much as irrational this justification is, nevertheless, the papacy accepted it and rewarded Aquinas with canonization

2. Aquinas did not intend to design the perfect social structure, which, as the Orthodox Christian Church, would imitate God, preach the teaching of Lord God Jesus Christ, and assist her members in accomplishment of the will of God. Aquinas described the self–sufficient establishment with the stable earthly hierarchy, which secures complete protection of its leaders by all means, especially through the total control of the conscience of its subjects. Within this establishment, the superior–pope usurps the authority of God, promulgates articles of faith, and sustains his authority with fear of post–mortem punishment of the soul by asserting own power to bind the will of God by own decisions. In some sense, this establishment embodies all experience of enslaving and assassinating of the soul and intellect of man, which was accumulated by all empires and slave–owning establishments during the history of mankind. As the result, the post–Aquinas papal Church of Rome became the establishment arranged for the systematic and constant violations of the Law of God and capable of 

    a/ accommodation of any violation of the Laws of God and any crime committed by the papal subjects and by civil rulers at the service of the papacy

    b/ achievement of any purpose of the papal hierarchy, which could be achieved through the control of the mind, conscience, and the manner of living of the papal subjects.

The process of compilation of Aquinas’ political theology illustrates not only the gradual substitution of the heathenism for the Christian teachings: it reveals the process of denigration and destruction of the very meaning of humanity. The starting point of the attack is the core – the words of God and true knowledge of God, the weapon – heathen philosophy, the purpose – absolute power over souls, bodies, and material wealth of the subjects.

In actuality, if to judge by the results, the Aquinas’ political doctrine

a/ corrupted faith and morality of the papal subjects

b/ facilitated the destruction of the Holy Roman Empire

c/ lead to the untimely death and suffering of the countless human beings during religious wars, persecutions, and riots

d/ discredited the papacy and triggered the Reformation/Western Schism, which began the manifest phase of disintegration of the unified before papal faith and papal empire.

The leaders of heathen religious establishments, states, and Empires were well acquainted with the practice to cover their lust for dominion and crimes by the name of their gods. Following the heathen philosophers, Aquinas established the precedent to use the name of Christian God and His teaching for justification of crimes against humanity. He built his doctrine on misinterpretation and contradiction of


the words of God

traditions established by the Apostles

decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (before the Great Schism),
which represented the Universal Christian Church – all Christendom,
and which according to the Church dogma speak by the power of the Holy Spirit.



Aquinas’ political theology provided the blueprint for creation of ideologies and arrangement of the oppressive structures of the totalitarian states. As a matter of fact, if the papal establishment, which still identifies itself with the Christian Church of Rome and pretends to govern the Universal Christian Church, employed the inhumane and criminal methods to sustain the stability and control own subjects and sacrilegiously covered own deeds with the name of God – what could prevent the inferno of the totalitarian states?

On the whole, only two things differentiate the Aquinas’ model of the hierarchical church from the Bolshevist–Communist–Nazi totalitarian states:

1. the wordings; Aquinas’ model utilizes the wordings and definitions borrowed from the Scriptures (God, faith, salvation, etc.), while the totalitarian versions operate with the philosophical definitions (philosophy, freedom, equality, new order, etc.) and utilize the patterns of heathen cults and myths for description of ideological, political, and social purposes

2. the degree of physical restriction of freedom: 

– the Aquinas’ model did not provide for the limitation of travel abroad (anyway, at the Aquinas’ time, it was not too much places for heretics to escape) and even permitted to expel the Jews and non–Catholics after deprivation of property

– the Communists kept the subjects behind the iron curtain, considered an escapee as betrayer and enemy of the nation, and executed captured fugitives

– the Nazis imposed the yoke of Greater Germany onto all Germans irrespective of their citizenship and dwelling at other states. 

In general, the Aquinas’ and the Communist/Nazi models have the striking similarities; they (1 through 6)

1/ substitute the artificial constructions for God:

– the Aquinas’ model – the philosophical–physical heathen deity, deified head of the papal hierarchy, and the common good

– the Communist model –  the common good and deified heads of the communist party

– the Nazi model – the common good of the German nation, deified Fuehrer as the central figure of Nazi ideology (as the pope is the central figure of political theology), which became the official state religion

2/ deprive its subjects–citizens–slaves of all human rights, including freedom of thought and freedom of conscience – for all, and life, social status, and property – for the different–minded

3/ prohibit the Bible and the books inconsistent with the official ideology/cult of the pope/leader of ruling party

4/ restrict access to the sources of alternative information and knowledge

5/ provide for forceful conversion or termination of the different–minded  

– the Aquinas’ model – mostly through the threat of exile, deprivation of property, and persecutions by the Inquisition; sometimes by waging war (e.g., the Crusades)

– the Communist and Nazi models – mostly through the physical extermination or separation from the society (e.g., prisons, concentration/labor camps, mental institutions for “correction” of the different–minded)

6/ equate the attempt to escape or change denomination/citizenship with the state treason punishable by death.

There is one more detail: as a Dominican monk and canonized papal saint, Aquinas was not only the loyal subject of the hierarchy; he is the hierarchy’s product–fruit and, as any papal saint, through canonization he becomes the official role model for the papal subjects. The main message, which the Aquinas’ legacy communicates to the papal subjects, is the exceptional Aquinas’ loyalty to the pope for the sake of which he disregarded

a/ the authority of God – by misinterpretation of the Scriptures and contradiction of the word of God

b/ the authority of the Apostles – by misinterpretation of their writings

c/ the authority of the Universal Christian Church – by misrepresentation of the decision of the Ecumenical Councils

d/ the authority of Catholic saint Augustine – by misrepresentation of his and making Augustine the advocate of the capital punishment for heresy.

Such emancipation of any authority at the heaven and the earth discloses the actual meaning and the consequences of deification of the pope, and also provides the warning concerning the destructive potential of the papal faith. Canonization of Aquinas has proved for all papal subjects that the service to the papacy and the papal needs and purposes are above all and everything: above God, above the Scriptures–word of God, above the Universal Christian Church, and above own saints. Thus, Aquinas’ case reveals the practical results: what the papal hierarchical church makes from its subjects by deification of the hierarchy’s head – the pope, through elevation of the pope and the superior at the place of God, and through substitution of the heathen political theology for the Christian teachings.



Conclusive Remarks


According to Gunther Lewy, the contemporary papal Church of Rome– the Vatican exists as a political institution and “transnational actor in world politics,” whose political interests predict its behavior more reliably than its religious dogmas [Lewy ref. in: Coleman 67].

The definition does not mention the old – traditional – papal lust for the absolute power over the world. Today, the Vatican still is the political organization, which in any moment could blossom into the inhumane empire made after the Aristotle’s political design elaborated by the Romans. Until it keeps its foundation – Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology, the papacy can return to the phase of manifest struggle for secular power whenever and wherever any of its subsystems is functioning as a component of any structure or establishment that has access to the power of coercion.

The works of some researchers contain the definite warnings concerning the continuing existence of the world–wide papal church and re–iterate incompatibility of Christianity with the political or other worldly power. (For instance, John F. Walvord considers alliance of the religious power of the papal church of Rome with the political power in connection with the interpretation Book of Revelation, Chapter 17, vers. 1–6 [Walvord (1988) 95–98].)

Fintan O’Toole (Dublin) concludes his article concerning the crisis in the papal Church in America with an assertion of the analogy between the strategy of the Vatican and the strategy of communist leaders in Europe. It seems that the article is intended to remind what happened with the European communist regimes (“hierarchical dogmatic systems”), which were not able to comprehend the anger of public [O’Toole].

Perhaps, it would be the logical end of political theology and its embodiment: to be discarded as the population of Europe discarded the offspring of political theology – communist ideology with its embodiments – the inhumane totalitarian slave–owning states. Communism fascinated many people who did not know its essence, could not imagine its consequences, and who were not aware about its meaning for the countries, where communists established their stronghold with propaganda, lies, and unspeakable crimes against humanity. After people acquired the knowledge of the nature and consequences of communism, many of them realized that this ideology of evil is not compatible with the normal human nature. Likewise, the Christendom should disclose the essence of the papal doctrine – Aquinas’ political theology – Catholicism and call it by its name: the heathenism cultivated by the philosophizing theologians who had lost an ability to discriminate between the good and the evil. Ultimately, Christianity must be cleared of any connection with Aquinas’ political theology/ papal faith/ Catholicism.

The history of the papacy reveals two apparently contradictory phenomena: the failure to achieve the absolute power over the entire world and longevity of the papal establishment in spite of all its crimes against humanity.

The inability to achieve the desirable power might be easily explained: as anything founded on falsification of the word of God, this particular papal purpose cannot be accomplished until all population of the world is transformed into the slaves – the living dead.

Two factors might explain the tenacity of the papal establishment:

1/ the papal hierarchical church exists by exploiting the name of Jesus Christ and reciting references to the Gospels; the papacy has attached itself and its political theology to the Church of Rome founded by two Apostles of God – St. Peter and St. Paul. As soon as the Christian Faith and Christian Church are indestructible, the papal establishment – embodiment of political theology – could exist until it continues to disguise its real essence under the name of Christianity

2/ as the night follows the day, and as the darkness watches the light, in the same fashion, the evolution has its own shadow – the anti–evolution, which will work until the Earth serves as the training and testing ground on which a human being becomes either a child of God or the servant of the arch–evil.

In view of that, political theology (or its versions updated and tailored to the different temporal settings) might exist until the end of time because it serves the purpose: as the false prophets, it tests

a/ the human loyalty and love to God

b/ the ability to cognize and accept the love of God

c/ the readiness to fulfill the Law of God.


Consequently, it separates the children of God from the subjects of the pope.

Currently, the papacy still is in the pursuit of world–wide domination through latent (manifest in the recent Past – before the world–wide scandals concerning corruption, child abuse, and illegal cover–up of crimes by the papal servants in the papal churches, religious orders, orphanages, and other institutions) advancement of ecumenism. Ecumenism*13* is the modern form of the Fourth Crusade; with the ecumenical initiatives of the papacy (especially the attempt to attain the unity by forceful conversion, with the “aggressive proselytism” or so called “uniatism” [Documents of the Christian Church 430]), the papacy intends to achieve the same centuries–old purposes:

1/ to subdue the Greek Orthodox Church and other Christian Churches to the Roman pope, therefore, to complete the worldwide substitution of the heathenism for Christianity

2/ to establish the world church as the world empire under one “supreme” ruler – the Roman pope.

Consequently, the Christians should always remember the historical events, which illustrate the actual essence of Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology (especially its influence on the ability to discern the good and the evil) and reveal the destructive potential of its embodiment – the papal church of Rome:


sacrilegious portrayal of God as the source of evil and other blasphemies
disseminated through the political theology
and especially, through Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola


the atrocities of the papal Crusades


the crimes against humanity committed by the Inquisition


deprivation of the laity of the Chalice of the Eucharist


the deeds of the “Church militants”


the brainwashing achievements of the Magisterium


the deification of the pope who pretends on the place and “share of dignity” of God


propagation of the Manichaean heresy
and techniques of the heathen diviners leading to perversion of the human nature


cooperation of the papal hierarchy with Fascism and Nazism


moral degradation of the members of the papal hierarchy
stemming from the special “grace” of the papal office
and positioning of the papacy and its hierarchy

above the Law of God and laws of men.



            It must be never forgotten that


the history of the papal Church of Rome is written
with blood of the victims of the Crusades, religious wars and persecutions,
with the blood of heretics, the different–minded,
and those who rejected worship to the pope
and attempted to keep freedom of thinking


the “universal” teachers and shepherds – the popes –“enlightened” human history
with the pyres on which human beings finished their existence in agony and despair,
and with bewilderment of the Dark Ages followed the prohibition to read the Bible


the papal establishment disseminates heresies and heathen misconceptions,
which it sacrilegiously associates with the Christian teachings


the papacy keeps its subjects in spiritual slavery


there is no place for the Christian faith, ideals, and values in the papal establishment .



Christianity transforms a human being into a human child of God.

The papal “hierarchical church” transforms human beings into

a/ the Aristotelian social animals, the part–property of the papal “perfect community,” the unreservedly obedient servants whose mortal sins committed according the order of the superiors are considered as the virtue

b/ the idol–worshipers and diviners who apply bodily pain and austerity techniques to over–stimulate imagination and then present their hallucinations as the “divine revelations”

c/ the deceived and misguided people who believe that they follow Christian teachings, yet who are deprived of the Chalice of salvation and who are fed with heresies and figments of imagination of the diviners, with which their superiors/“shepherds” supplanted the words of God.   

In conclusion, the history of the papal Church of Rome reveals the history of denigration, corruption, and destruction of human being – the conscience, the mind, and a body; Aquinas’ political theology provides the theoretical basis and “how–to–do” instructions for denigration and destruction of human being.

What, then, need to be done so the people of the world would comprehend the truth and realize that the Christians have nothing in common with the papal subjects? Is any possibility left to restore the original image of the Christians and therefore, to clear them from any association with the papal establishment?







*1*  See Philosophy: the Beginning, Folder Philosophy, Page_1.


*2*  Diviner is a person who uses divination to enter the altered states of mind during which the diviner experiences unusual sensations and “sees” the images and phantasms, which he accepts as the divine revelations and visions. The descriptions of the hallucinations composed the foundation of the “spiritual knowledge” of the diviners who were identified as mystics, ascetics, saints, prophets, seers, etc. In the heathen Antiquity, the diviners were considered as the possessed with “divine madness.” The heathen diviners used self–inflicting pain, special psycho–somatic techniques, and narcotic substances to enhance the sensual perception, unleash imagination, and enter the state of frenzy. The heathen diviners evoked the altered states of mind (the altered state is the definition for the specific activity of the mind, when it fervently creates imaginary worlds–substitutions for the actuality) and ascribed achieved insanity to the “possession by gods.”

See also  Divination, Folder Archive, Page September_2010.


*3* For instance, the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola, experiences of Teresa of Avila, Sor María de Agreda, and other diviners – see The Church Militants, Folder Political Theology, Page_3.


*4* Concerning the Inquisition, see The Hierarchical Church, Folder Political Theology, Page_3.


*5* Pentarchy is the name for five major Christian Episcopates – the Episcopates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. In the second century, the Church in Rome arranged by two Apostles of God – St. Peter and St. Paul, was recognized as maxima, antiquissima. The Episcopate of Rome became the main authority in questions of faith and purity of the Christian doctrine: it held the primacy of honor because it was established by two Apostles. However, the Councils, which included all Bishops, governed life of the Christendom.

In the fourth century, with the expansion of Christianity, the Councils became Ecumenical or the Universal, because they united the Christian Churches of the known/already discovered world–cosmos–universe. The Ecumenical Councils unified life of all Episcopates. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, in 325, referred to existence of the Episcopates in Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The First Council of Constantinople, in 381, recognized Constantinople as New Rome (in 330, Constantinople became a new capital of the Roman Empire) and honored the Bishop of Constantinople as the second after the Bishop of Rome [in: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 32; Conway 22]. In the fifth century, five major Episcopates – the Episcopates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem – became the Patriarchates; as the Pentarchy, they collectively coordinated life of the whole – Universal – Christian Church.


*6* Concerning Filioque, see Works of Augustine of Hippo, Folder Philosophy, Page_6.


*7* See The Church Militants, Folder Political Theology, Page_3


*8* See Works of Friedrich Nietzsche, Folder Philosophy, Page_8


*9* See Heresy, Folder Archive, Page_2_2008.


*10* See Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, Folder Philosophy, Page_7


*11 * Pro–Lutheran theologian C. Bindemann (19th century) compares Dr. Martin Luther with Augustine, to whom he refers as “one of the strongest pillars of the Roman Catholicism” [C. Bindemann ref. and qtd. in: Schaff 9]. If so, one Augustine laid the foundation for transformation of the Roman Catholic Church into the papal church of Rome, and another Augustine exposed the fruits of transformation.



*12* See Introduction to Political Theology, Folder Political Theology, Page_1


*14* see Ecumenism, Folder Political Theology, Page_4.









Augustine (Augustinus, Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, Saint). Homilies on the Gospel of St. John (Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John). Trans. John Gibb and James Innes. A Select Library of the Nicene and Past-Nicene Fathers. v. 7. Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1888. 7-452. 14 vols.

Bacon, Roger. "The Opus Majus  (Selections)." Selections from Medieval Philosophers. Part II: Roger Bacon to William of Ockham. Ed. and trans. by Richard McKeon. New York, Chicago, Boston: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. 7–110.

Barnes, Harry Elmer. A Survey of Western Civilization. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1947.

Baybrook, Gar.  Heresies of the Christian Church.  Payson, Arizona:  Leaves of Autumn Books, 1998.

Bitzes, John G.  Greece in World War II to April 1941.  1982.  Manhattan,  Kansas:   Sunflower  UP, 1989.

Bosworth, A.B. Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP, 1988.

Chidester, David. Christianity:  A Global History. New York:  HarperCollins, 2000.

Coleman, John. "Catholic Wellsprings for the Prophetic Imagination." The Future of Prophetic Christianity:  Essays in Honor of Robert McAfee Brown. Ed. Denise Lardner Carmody and John Tully Carmody. Maryknoll, New York:  Orbis Books, 1993. 67–75.

Conway, John Donald.  Times of Decision:  Story of the Councils. Notre Dame, Indiana:  Fides, 1962.

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Ed. Norman P. Tanner. London and Washington, DC:  Sheed & Ward, Georgetown UP, 1990.

Documents of the Christian Church. Selected and edited by Henry Bettenson. 3rd ed. Ed. Chris Maunder. Oxford, U.K.:  Oxford UP, 1999.

von Drey, Johann Sebastian. Brief Introduction to the Study of Theology: With Reference to the Scientific Standpoint and the Catholic System. Trans. with an Introduction and Annotation by Michael J. Himes. Notre Dame, Indiana:  University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.

Dulles, Avery Robert. The Craft of Theology:  From Symbol to System. New York:  Crossroad, 1995.

Durant, Will.  The Story of Civilization. The Age of Faith. (A.D. 325–1300).  New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1950.

Dvornik, Francis.  The Ecumenical Councils.  New York:  Hawthorn Books, 1961.

Eatwell, Roger. "Ideologies: Approaches and Trends." "Fascism." Contemporary Political Ideologies. Eds. Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright. Boulder, Colorado:  Westview Press, 1993. 1–22. 169–191.

Encyclopedia of the Vatican and Papacy. Ed. Frank J. Coppa. Westport, Connecticut:  Greenwood Press, 1999.

Folz, Robert. The Concept of Empire in Western Europe from the Fifth to the Fourteenth Century. Trans. Sheila Ann Ogilvie. J. and J. Harper Editions. New York and Evanston:  Harper and Row, 1969.

Fuehrer Directives, and Other Top–Level Directives of the German Armed Forces. Washington, D.C., 1948. 2 vols.

Greece:  A Summary of Background Information. Prepared by the Office of Public Affairs U.S. Department of  State.  March,  1947.

Grun, Bernard. The Timetables of History:  a Horizontal Linkage of Peoples and Events. Based on Werner Stein's KULTURFAHRPLAN. 3rd revised ed. New York:  Simon & Schuster and Touchstone, 1991.

Haight, Roger.  Dynamics  of  Theology.  New York:   Paulist Press,  1990.

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Editorial Sponsors:  John Chamberlain, et al. New York:  Reynal & Hitchcock, 1940.

Hughes, Philip. The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils 325–1870.  New York:  Hanover House, 1961.

Ignatius of Loyola, Saint. Personal Writings:  Reminiscences, Spiritual Diary, Select Letters, including text of The Spiritual Exercises. Trans. with Introduction and Notes by Joseph A. Muniti and Philip Endean. London:  Penguin Books, 1996.

John Paul II.  "Redemptor Hominis."  "Veritatis Splendor."  "Ut Unum Sint."  The Encyclicals of John Paul II. Ed., Introductions by J. Michael Miller.  Huntington, Indiana:  Our Sunday Visitor, 1996.  31–96;  674–771;  914–976.

Küng, Hans. "Paradigm Change in Theology: a Proposal for Discussion." Paradigm Change in Theology:  a Symposium for the Future. Eds. Hans Küng and David Tracy, trans. Margaret Kohl. New York:  Crossroad, 1989. 3–33.

Küng, Hans.  Structures of the Church.  New York:  Crossroad, 1982.

Küng, Hans. Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View. Trans. Peter Heinegg. New York:  Doubleday, 1988.

La Due, William J.  The Chair of Saint Peter:  A History of the Papacy.   Maryknoll,   New York:   Orbis  Books,  1999.

Lea, Henry Charles. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages. New York:  Harper & Brothers, Franklin Square, 1887. 3 vols.

Lebedev, A.P. (Aleksei Petrovich). Istoria Razdeleniia Tserkvei v IX, X i XI Vekakh. Sankt–Peterburg: Aleteiia, 1999. (Russian). (Lebedev, Aleksei P. The History of Schism in IX, X, and XI Centuries. Ed. M.A. Morosov. Byzantium Library. St. Peterburg: Aleteiia, 1999.)

Lewy, Guenter. The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. 1964. Boulder, Colorado:  Da Capo Press, 2000.

Likoudis, James. Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism:  the 14th Century Apologia of Demetrios Kydones for Unity with Rome. New York:  Catholics United for the Faith, 1983.

Luther, Martin. Basic Luther. Four of his Fundamental Works.  (The Ninety–five Theses.  Address to the Nobility.  Concerning Christian Liberty.  A Small Catechism.)  Springfield, Illinois: Templegate Publishers, 1994.

Maritain, Jacques. The Degrees of Knowledge. Notre Dame, Indiana:  University of Notre Dame Press, 1995.

McCrimmon, Ian. 12 Questions for Theologians: Five–dimensional Space–Time Mass. Worthing, Sussex, England:  COSMATOM, 1992.

Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Trans. Adele Fiske. Crestood, New York:  St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974.

New Catholic Encyclopedia. Washington, DC:  The Catholic University of America, 1967. 

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Theology and the Philosophy of Science. Trans. Francis McDonagh. Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1976.

Passelecq, Georges, and Bernard Suchecky. The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI. Trans. Steven Randall. With an Introduction by Garry Wills. New York:  Harcourt Brace, 1997.

Paulus Orosius.  The Seven Books of History against the Pagans. The Fathers of the Church. v. 50. Trans. Roy J. Deferrari. Washington, D.C.:  Catholic University of America Press, 1964.

Philo of Alexandria. The Works of Philo. Complete and Unabridged. Trans. C.D. Yonge. Peabody, Massachusetts:  Hendrickson,  1993.

The Philokalia: The Complete Text Compiled by St. Nikodimus of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. Trans. and ed. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, with the assistance of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Brookline) Constantine Cavarnos, Dana Miller, Basil Osborne, Norman Russel. London:  Faber & Faber, 1979–1995. 

Rhodes, James M. The Hitler Movement:  A Modern Millenarian Revolution. Hoover Institute Publication 213.  Stanford, California:  Hoover Institution Press, 1980.

Romanides, Joannes S. Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine:  An Interplay between Theology and Society. Patriarch Athenagoras Memorial Lectures. Brookline, Massachusetts:  Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981.

Runciman, Steven. The Eastern Schism:  A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the XIth and XIIth Centuries. Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1955. New York:  AMS, 1983 (reprint).

Savitsky, Alice A. The Invincible Empire. Washington, DC: Aehesia Services, 2003.

Schaff, Philip. "Prolegomena:  St. Augustin’s Life and Work." A Select Library of the Nicene and Past–Nicene Fathers. v. 1.  Buffalo:  Christian Literature, 1892.  1–27. 14 vols.

Scott, Sydney Herbert. The Eastern Churches and the Papacy. London: Sheed and Ward, 1928.Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III Concerning England (1198–1216). Eds. C.R. Cheney and W.H. Semple. London:  Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953.

Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III Concerning England (1198–1216). Eds. C.R. Cheney and W.H. Semple. London:  Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953.

Sherrard, Philip. Church, Papacy, and Schism:  A Theological Enquiry. London:  SPCK, 1978 (a).

Sherrard, Philip. The Greek East and Latin West: A Study in the Christian Tradition. London:  Oxford UP, 1959.

Sherrard, Philip. The Wound of Greece: Studies in Neo–Hellenism. London, U.K.: Rex Collings, and Athens, Greece:  Anglo–Hellenic, 1978.

Thomas Aquinas (Saint). Summa Theologica. First Complete American Edition in 3 volumes literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, San Francisco: Benziger Brothers, 1947.

Tracy, David.  "Hermeneutical Reflection in the new Paradigm." Paradigm Change in Theology: A Symposium for the Future. Eds. Hans Küng, David Tracy; trans. Margaret Köhl.  New York:  Crossroad, 1989. 34–62.

Trager, James. The People’s Chronology:  A Year–by–Year Record of Human Events from Prehistory to the Present. Rev. ed. A Henry Holt Reference Book. New York:  Henry Holt, 1992.

Vacandard, Elphege. The Inquisition: A Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power of the Church. 1915.  Trans. from the 2nd edition Bertrand L. Conway. Merrick, New York:  Richwood Publishing, 1977.

Walvoord, John F. The Nations, Israel, and the Church in Prophecy. Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Academic Books, 1988.

Willett, Franciscus.  Understanding the Inquisition.  N. Easton, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Press, 1968.

Wills, Garry. "Introduction:  Fumbling toward Justice." The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI by Georges Passelecq and Bernard Suchecky. Trans. Steven Randall. With an Introduction by Garry Wills. New York:  Harcourt Brace, 1997. ix–xxiv.

Winquist, Charles E. Epiphanies of Darkness:  Deconstruction in Theology. Philadelphia:  Fortress Press, 1986.


Newspapers: The Washington Post


Cooperman, Alan. "Abuse Problem Is Clouded by a Lack of Data."  March 10, 2002. A3, A16. (a)

Cooperman, Alan.  "Abuse Policy Has Roots in Middle Ages." May 19, 2002. A12. (b)

Cooperman, Alan. "Out of ‘Zero Tolerance,’ New Support for Priests: Conservative Groups Fight for Priests, Status Quo." October 13, 2002.  A1, A23. (c)

Daly, Peter. "In This Diocese, the Policy Has Long Been Clear." March 24, 2002. B5.

McGrory, Mary. "Awaiting a Change Within the Church." August 4, 2002.  F5.

O’Toole, Fintan. "The Cardinals Who Weren’t Called to Rome." April 28, 2002. B1, B4.

Powell, Michael. "A Fall from Grace." August 4, 2002. F1, F4.

Williams, Daniel, and Alan Cooperman.  "Pontiff Calls for Discipline in Clergy."  April 21, 2002.  A1, A14.




Posted  September 2, 2011

Original Post November 30, 2008








Copyright (c)2010 Sunday's Thoughts &