St. Ambrose of Optina
Regarding the unjust glorying of the papists in the imaginary dignity of their Church
This letter was written by St. Ambrose of Optina at a time when the educated classes in Russia where reading more about religion in French than in their native Russian. Ties with people of other confessions often caused people to doubt their own Orthodox faith. The letter is no less useful today for those who grapple with the difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
In vain do some of the Orthodox marvel at the current
propaganda of the Roman Church, at the feigned
selflessness and activity of her missionaries and at the
zeal of the Latin sisters of mercy, and incorrectly
ascribe to the Latin Church such importance, as if by her
apostasy from the Orthodox Church, the latter remained
longer such, and has the necessity to seek unification
with the former. On rigorous examination, this opinion
proves to be false; and the energetic Latin activity not
only does not evoke surprise, but, on the contrary,
arouses deep sorrow in the hearts of right-thinking
people, who understand the truth.
The Eastern Orthodox Church, from apostolic times until
now, observes unchanged and unblemished by innovations
both the Gospel and Apostolic teachings, as well as the
Tradition of the Holy Fathers and resolutions of the
Ecumenical Councils, at which God-bearing men, having
gathered from throughout the entire world, in a conciliar
manner composed the divine Symbol of the Orthodox Faith
[the Creed], and having proclaimed it aloud to the whole
universe, in all respects perfect and complete, forbade on
pain of terrible punishments any addition to it, any
abridging, alteration, or rearrangement of even one iota
of it. The Roman Church departed long ago into heresy and
innovation. As far back as Basil the Great, certain
bishops of Rome were condemned by him in his letter to
Eusebius of Samosata, "They do not know and do not
wish to know the truth; they argue with those who proclaim
the truth to them, and assert their heresy."
Apostle Paul commands us to separate ourselves from those
damaged by heresy and not to seek union with them, saying,
A man that is an heretic after the first and second
admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is
subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself
(Tit. 3:10-11). The catholic [universal] Orthodox Church,
not two times, but multiple times tried to bring to reason
the local Roman Church; but, despite all the just attempts
at persuading the former, the latter remained persistent
in its erroneous manner of thinking and acting.
Already back in the seventh century, the false
philosophizing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son
was conceived in the Western Church. At first, certain
popes rose up against this new reasoning, calling it
heretical. Pope Damasus proclaims in a Council resolution:
"He who thinks rightly about the Father and the Son
but improperly about the Holy Spirit is a heretic"
(Encyclical § 5). Other popes, such as Leo II and
John VIII, also affirmed the same thing. But most of their
successors, having been carried away by rights of
domination and finding many worldly benefits in this for
themselves, dared to modify the Orthodox dogma about the
procession of the Holy Spirit, contrary to the decisions
of the seven Ecumenical Councils, and also contrary to the
clear words of the Lord Himself in the Gospel: Which
proceedeth from the Father (Jn. 15:26).
But just as one mistake--which is not considered a
mistake--always brings another one in its train, and one
evil begets another, so the same happened with the Roman
Church. This incorrect philosophizing that the Holy Spirit
proceeds also from the Son, having just barely appeared in
the West, already then gave birth to other similar
offspring, and instituted little by little other
novelties, for the most part contradictory to the
commandments of our Savior clearly portrayed in the
Gospel, such as: sprinkling instead of immersion in the
mystery of Baptism, exclusion of laypersons from the
Divine Chalice and the use of unleavened bread instead of
leavened bread in the Eucharist, and excluding from the
Divine Liturgy the invocation of the All-Holy and
Life-Giving and All-Effectuating Spirit. It also
introduced novelties that violated the ancient Apostolic
rites of the Catholic Church, such as: the exclusion of
baptized infants from Chrismation and reception of the
Most-Pure Mysteries, the exclusion of married men from the
priesthood, the declaration of the Pope as infallible and
as the locum tenens of Christ, and so on. In this way, it
overturned the entire ancient Apostolic office that
accomplishes almost all the Mysteries and all the
ecclesiastical institutions--the office, which before had
been preserved by the ancient holy and Orthodox Church of
Rome, being at that time the most honored member of the
Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Encyclical § 5,
item 12).
Nevertheless, the main heresy of the Roman Church is not
in subject matter, but in action; there is the fabricated
dogma of supremacy, or rather, prideful striving for
dominance of the bishops of Rome over the four other
Eastern Patriarchs. For the sake of this dominance,
supporters of the Roman Church placed their pope above the
canons and foundations of the Ecumenical Councils,
believing in his infallibility. But history truthfully
testifies as to just what this papal infallibility is.
About Pope John XXIII, it was stated in the decision of
the Council of Constance, which deposed this pope:
"It has been proved that Pope John is an inveterate
and incorrigible sinner, and he was and is an unrighteous
man, justly indicted for homicide, poisoning, and other
serious crimes; a man who often and persistently before
various dignitaries claimed and argued that the human soul
dies and burns out together with the human body, like
souls of animals and cattle, and that the dead will by no
means resurrect in the last day." The lawless acts of
Pope Alexander VI and his sons were so monstrous that, in
the opinion of his contemporaries, this pope was trying to
establish on Earth the kingdom of satan, and not the
Kingdom of God. Pope Julius II reveled in the blood of
Christians, constantly arming--for his own purposes--one
Christian nation against another (Spiritual Conversation,
No. 41, 1858). There are many other examples, testifying
to the great falls and fallibility of popes, but there is
no time to talk about them now. With such historical
evidence of its impairment through heresy and of the falls
of its popes, is it warranted for the papists to glory in
the false dignity of the Roman Church? Is it just that
they should abase the Orthodox Eastern Church, whose
infallibility is based not on any one representative, but
on the Gospel and Apostolic teachings and on the canons
and decisions of the seven Ecumenical and nine Local
Councils? At these Councils were God-inspired and holy
men, gathered from the entire Christian world, and they
established everything relating to the requirements and
spiritual needs of the Church, according to the Holy
Scriptures. So, do the papists behave soundly, who, for
the sake of worldly goals, place the person of their pope
above the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, considering
their pope as more than infallible?
For all the stated reasons, the Catholic Eastern Church
severed its communion with the local Church of Rome, which
had fallen away from the truth and from the canons of the
catholic Orthodox Church. Just as The Roman bishops had
begun with pridefulness, they are also ending with
pridefulness. They are intensifying their argument that
allegedly the Orthodox Catholic Church fell away from
their local Church. But that is wrong and even ridiculous.
Truth testifies that the Roman Church fell away from the
Orthodox Church. Although for the sake of imaginary
rightness papists promote the view that during the time of
union with the Catholic Orthodox Church, their patriarch
was first and senior among the five patriarchs, this was
true only for the sake of Imperial Rome, and not because
of some spiritual merit or authority over the other
patriarchs. It is wrong that they called their Church
"Catholic", i.e. universal. A part can never be
named the whole; the Roman Church before its fall from
Orthodoxy, comprised only a fifth part of the one Catholic
Church. Especially since it rejected the decisions of the
Ecumenical Councils the Roman Church should not be called
catholic, as it follows its own incorrect theorizing.
To some, the sheer numbers and widespread distribution of
adherents to the Latin Church is eye-catching, and
therefore those who unreliably understand truth
deliberate: should it not be for this reason that the
Latin Church be called Ecumenical or Catholic? But this
view is extremely erroneous, because nowhere in Holy
Scriptures are special spiritual rights ascribed to great
numbers and large quantity. The Lord clearly showed that
the sign of the true Catholic Church does not consist in
great numbers and quantity when he spoke in the Gospels,
Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good
pleasure to give you the kingdom (Lk. 12:32). There is
another example in Holy Scripture which does not favor
quantity. Upon the death of Solomon, the kingdom of Israel
was divided in the presence of his son, and Holy Scripture
presents ten tribes as having fallen away; whereas two,
having remained faithful to their duty, had not fallen
away. Therefore, the Latin Church in vain tries to prove
its correctness by its multitude, quantity, and widespread
distribution.
At the Ecumenical Councils, a completely different
indication of the Ecumenical Church was designated by the
Holy Fathers, i.e. determined in council: to believe in
the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and not
simply in a universal, or everywhere-present church.
Although the Roman Church has followers everywhere in the
world, since it did not maintain inviolate the catholic
and apostolic decrees, but rather deviated towards
innovation and incorrect philosophies, it does not at all
belong to the One, Holy and Apostolic Church.
Those well-disposed towards the Latins likewise extremely
erroneously reason that, firstly, upon the falling away of
the West from Orthodoxy, something as if became lacking in
the Catholic Church. This loss was replaced long ago by
all-wise Providence--it was the foundation in the North of
the Orthodox Church of Russia. Secondly, they think that
allegedly for the sake of the former seniority and size of
the Roman Church, the Orthodox Church has need of union
with it. However, we are speaking not of a human judgment,
but a judgment of God. Apostle Paul clearly says, What
communion hath light with darkness? (2 Cor. 6:14)
– i.e., the light of Christ’s truth can never
be combined with the darkness of heresy. The Latins
don’t want to leave their heresy, and they persist,
as the words of Basil the Great testifies about them what
has been proven over many centuries, "They do not
know the truth and do not wish to know; they argue with
those who proclaim the truth to them and assert their
heresy," as stated above.
Instead of entertaining the above-mentioned thoughts,
those supportive of the Latins, would be better off
thinking about what’s said in the psalms, I have
hated the congregation of evil-doers (Ps. 25:5), and
to pity those who, for the sake of domination and avarice
and other worldly aims and benefits, scandalized almost
the entire world through the Inquisition and cunning
Jesuit intrigues, and even now outrage and abuse the
Orthodox in Turkey through their missionaries. Latin
missionaries don’t care about converting to the
Christian faith the native Turks, but they strive to
pervert from the true path the Orthodox Greeks and
Bulgarians, using for this purpose all sorts of unpleasant
means and schemes. Is this not craftiness, and is this
craftiness not malicious? Would it be prudent to seek
unity with such people? For the same reason, should one be
surprised at the feigned diligence and selflessness of
such figures, i.e. the Latin missionaries and sisters of
mercy? They are downright pitiable ascetics. They strive
to convert and lead people, not to Christ, but to their
pope.
What should we say in response to these questions: can the
Latin Church and other religions be called the New Israel
and ark of salvation? And how can one understand the
Eucharist of this Church of Rome? Only the Church of the
right-believing, undamaged by heretical philosophizing,
can be called the New Israel. Holy Apostle John the
Theologian says, They went out from us, but they were
not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt
have continued with us: but they went out, that they might
be made manifest that they all were not of us (1 Jn.
2:19). And Holy Apostle Paul says, One Lord, one
faith (Eph. 4:5), i.e. one is the true faith, and not
every belief is good--as those having separated themselves
from the one true Church recklessly think, about whom Holy
Apostle Jude writes, How that they told you there
should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after
their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate
themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit (Jude
1:18-19). Therefore, how can these, who are alien to the
spirit of truth, be called the New Israel? Or, how can
they be called a haven of salvation for anyone, when both
one and the other cannot be effectuated without the grace
of the Holy Spirit?
In the Orthodox Church, it is believed that the bread and
wine in the mystery of the Eucharist are transubstantiated
by the invocation and descent of the Holy Spirit. But the
Latins, as mentioned above, considered this invocation
unnecessary and excluded it from their Liturgy. Thus, he
who understands--let him understand about the Eucharist of
the Latins.
And another question: if, as it is said, except for the
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is called
the Orthodox Church, salvation in other religions is
doubtful, then why is this truth not preached openly in
Russia? To this question the answer is very simple and
clear. In Russia religious tolerance is allowed, and the
heterodox occupy important posts along with Orthodox:
heads of educational institutions for the most part are
heterodox; leaders of provinces and districts of cities
are often heterodox; regimental and battalion commanders
are not infrequently heterodox. Wherever a clergyman
starts openly proclaiming that outside of the Orthodox
Church there is no salvation, heterodox of religious rank
take offense. From such a situation, Russian Orthodox
clergy have acquired the habit and engrained
characteristic of talking about this subject evasively.
For this reason, and from continual interaction with
heterodox, but more from reading their works, perhaps some
began to be lax in their thoughts about the hope of
salvation and other religions.
Despite the Orthodox Church’s spirit of meekness and
the love of peace and patience of her pastors and
followers, in the West there has been published during the
preceding centuries by followers of different Christian
creeds, and predominantly in our times, such a multitude
of books against the teaching of the Eastern Church that
not only would it be difficult to appraise their merit, it
would be hard to enumerate them. And although such books
in general are filled with slanders, fables, blame,
obvious inventions and lies, and especially mental
poison-creating cobwebs, with the obvious goal of forming
in Europe a spirit hostile to the Eastern Church, and
especially to our homeland, and, having shaken the faith
of our Orthodox Church, to seduce her followers from the
path of truth. But since they are published under tempting
names, in agreeable forms, with such typographical
neatness that they unconsciously lure the curiosity of
readers, not a few of whom are found in our homeland,
where these works penetrate by dark paths, and who, having
a superficial understanding of the subjects of Christian
doctrine, cannot help but be carried away by thoughts
contrary to the truth. The writers of the Latin Church
have now especially armed themselves against the Orthodox,
proclaiming the supremacy of their pope and local Roman
Church over all governments and local Churches and nations
of the world. Predominantly at the current time those busy
with this are the Jesuits in France, who, using the
omnipresence of the French language, are intensifying some
sort of feverish activity by means of works in that
language to implant their manner of thought everywhere
against the doctrine and hierarchical structure of the
Eastern Church--not ashamed for this purpose to create the
most heinous fictions, obvious lies and shameless
distortion of historical truths. Many of the educated
Orthodox, reading these works in the French language, and
not reading their own in Russian about the Orthodox faith,
can easily believe the fine-spun lies instead of the
truth, which they do not know well.
For those who wish to know in detail the reasons why the
papists have deviated so far from Orthodoxy, it’s
useful to read a recently published work by Avdii Vostokov
[late nineteenth century] about the Roman Church’s
relationship with other churches. In the second part of
this book are particularly striking passages about the
oath of Latin bishops to their pope and about slanders of
papists against the Orthodox (p. 49, 60 and 137).
26 / 08 / 2013
Source- www.pravoslavie.ru/englis/63657.html
