16.

 How did papal claims and the idea of papal infallibility ensure that false teachings such as purgatory, merits, atonement, indulgences, the Assumption, etc., would become embedded in the doctrine of the Latin Church?

            Over the course of its ten centuries of separation from the Orthodox Church, the Latin Church introduced a host of innovations, chief among which are the dogmas of papal supremacy and infallibility, the filioque, created grace, the Immaculate Conception and purgatory. To understand how these false doctrines became solidly established in Roman Catholicism, it is necessary to recall the formula of a schism. Once Rome placed itself above the Ecumenical Councils, which are expressive of the conscience of the Church, it severed itself from its only protection against error and heresy, thus ensuring that it would fall into heresy itself — and so it did. When Rome turned its back on its former correct understanding that all bishops are equal and consult with one another in councils, and when it likewise ignored the conscience of the Church, which alone is infallible, it began to make pretensions and heretical claims about its own bishop, starting in the ninth century. In time (1870), Rome went on to invent the false dogma that the bishop of Rome is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

            The doctrine of papal infallibility was actually only an extension of the false teaching of universal authority. As the introduction to this book notes, papal infallibility is denied by the very Church that invented it, for the Roman Catholic Church admits that many Roman popes were heretics and that many spoke falsehood when making ex cathedra pronouncements concerning faith and morals. Papal infallibility is again shown to be false since the Apostle Peter, who the Latin Church proclaims was its first pope, was not infallible. At the Apostolic Council held at Jerusalem (cf. second chapter of Galatians), Peter was chided by Paul for not keeping the faith, whereupon Peter felt a need to renounce publicly his incorrect views. Given the fact that Peter spoke falsehood, Rome's argument of papal infallibility collapses.

            One absurd and even blasphemous teaching of the Latin Church is that of supererogatory works, which can be explained exclusively by the avarice of the popes and the Catholic clergy. This false teaching was confirmed in 1343, and as Protopriest Victor Potapov explains, it maintains that many of the saints, in endeavoring to realize in their own lives not only God's law or the commandments (praecepta), offered superabundant, supererogatory satisfaction to the divine justice and performed supererogatory good works (opera supererogatonis). From them, a certain quantity still remains, as it were, of excess, supererogatory good works. This excess makes up the so-called treasury of supererogatory merits (thesarus meritorium), which is at the complete and unconditional disposal of the pope. Whoever does not have as many of his own deeds as are needed to satisfy God's justice for his sins, can — fly the mercy of the pope-make use of the supererogatory merits of the saints in the Church's treasury — so Rome teaches in complete contradiction of the clear teaching of Sacred Scripture on man's salvation. The ideal of Christian perfection is so high, Fr. Victor explains, is so unattainable, that not only can man never perform anything supererogatory, but he cannot even attain this ideal. Fr. Victor goes on to cite two scriptural passages to explain. For example, the Lord said to His disciples: “When you shall have done all these things which are commanded of you, say, 'We are unworthy servants: we have done that which was our duty to do'“ (Lk 17:10). Again, the Apostle Paul writes:

For grace ye are saved through faith; and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them (Eph 2:8-10).

Regarding Rome's teaching on so-called purgatory (purgatorium), Orthodoxy considers it improper to elevate any speculative theological opinions to the level of dogma as Rome did with this matter. This opinion on the afterlife was elaborated and developed in detail after Rome cut itself off from the Apostolic Church in 1054, and it was accepted as dogma in 1439. Scriptures speak of Heaven and hell, but they mention no other place for the departed. The Latin Church went on to add an intermediate place or state for those souls who repented but died before undergoing temporal punishment here on earth for their sins to satisfy divine justice: this same purgatory. There, souls of the dead suffer various tortures to pay for their sins, and each soul stays there as much time as it is necessary to expiate those sins — or else, the Latin Church also teaches — the period of torments can be shortened by way of papal indulgences, which were granted not without the influence of financial motives (The matter of indulgences will be discussed below). When the period of torment ends, when the debt paid to God's justice is paid in full, the purified soul then passes from purgatory to Paradise.

            The cleansing fire of purgatorial flames and torments described in medieval literature are a complete myth. The souls of the dead are not cleansed or purged of their iniquities by virtue of many years of purgatorial torments themselves, by which they personally offer satisfaction to God's justice. Once the soul departs from the body, the ability of the soul to change its own status disappears. At that time, only the prayers and good works of the members of Christ's Church can assist that soul. If a soul experiences torments in hades as a result of sins it committed in earthly life, no other torment is permitted or is even necessary. As St. Mark of Ephesus wrote: “For if the remission of sins is accomplished for the sake of prayers, or merely by the divine love of mankind itself, there is no need for punishment and cleansing [by fire].” [Quoted in Fr. Seraphim Rose, The Soul After Death, p. 212].

            Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos lists many sources of the false teaching of purgatory, among which is the politico-economic connection of popery. He explains that:

The connecting of the purifying fire with material offerings brought the people's disenchantment with the popery. It is said that the purifying fire, the so-called purgatory, was invented for the completion of the temple of the Apostle Peter in Rome and the upkeep of the papal palace. But it must be observed that the dogma of the purifying fire was not invented simply to exploit the people, because... it is in line with the Franco-Latins' scholastic theology. Nevertheless, it was used for economic reasons as well [Life After Death, pp. 199-200].

As the Latins demonstrated at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39), they had no interest whatsoever in seeking the truth concerning purgatory. Their interest instead was simply to impose their heretical views on the Orthodox. The fact remains, however, that purgatory is “a fruit and result of the scholastic theology of the Franco-Latins and has no relationship to Orthodox theology as Christ taught it, the Apostles lived it, and the Holy Fathers handed it down to us” (Metropolitan Hierotheos).

            Rome's medieval teaching on indulgences (referred to above) is yet another false teaching that was completely unknown in the ancient, undivided Church as it contradicts the whole spirit of Orthodoxy. An indulgence is the forgiveness or reduction of the temporal punishment that a sinner must undergo for the satisfaction of God's justice. After the guilt and external punishment are remitted in the sacrament of repentance, indulgences are granted to a sinner by the agency of the pope, of the Savior’s surplus merits and the supererogatory good works of the Mother of God and the saints. Fr. Victor Potapov notes that the profitableness of indulgences led to their greater and greater growth and the search for new occasions for granting them. They are not usually given out ex gratis, but are generally sold for money — under the pretext, of course, of performing good works with the money. As the advocates and sellers of indulgences — including the popes, who trafficked in them, were guided by monetary interests, attacks on indulgences were some of the first features of the Reformation movement.

            With regard to the boundlessly insulting and blasphemous dogma of the Immaculate Conception, while it seems to exalt the Mother of God, it actually belittles her by denying all of her virtues. This false teaching maintains that Mary was placed in a state where it was impossible for her to sin, and thus she could not sin even if she wanted to. However, where there is no impulse to sin and no effort in overcoming temptations, neither is there any victory. Through the Immaculate Conception, the Latin Church takes away all victory and merit from the holiest of all the saints, the Mother of God. (Both this Latin dogma and that of the Assumption will be examined in detail in chapter ten).

            False teachings would have never become a part of the Latin Church had it remained united to Christ's Church, and had Rome submitted these teachings before a universal assembly of bishops from the entire Church, both East and West. As a body gathered in Council, such an assembly would have had the Holy Spirit as its guiding force, as opposed to a single fallible bishop. (As previously noted, however, as of Rome's severance from the Church in 1054, the popes were no longer so much as laymen in the Church, much less bishops, for Apostolic Succession was ended in the West).

            Although the Roman Church emerged from the Orthodox Church and was once bound to it as the Church of martyrs, saints, hierarchs and right-believing Orthodox Christians, Rome was severed from it as of the Great Schism. After the dictatorial popes were cut off from Christ's Church, they were also cut off from the Holy Spirit, and cut off from the fullness of Truth and from the only source of infallibility. As a result, they were no longer able to combat heresy when it arose, and false doctrines became firmly fixed in the Latin Church through the popes' ex cathedra promulgations of falsehood. Subsequently, amidst the waves of apostasy that blinded future generations in the West, the faith of Western Christians slowly began to change and deviate from the pure faith of the Apostolic Church. This process has continued unabated to the present time, and now there is hardly any similarity remaining between the West and Eastern Orthodoxy. As Philip Sherrard notes in this regard, the Christian West departed so far from the fullness of Truth, that it now possesses “a mentality increasingly non-religious in nature,” even when it thinks that it is being “religious.” [Philip Sherrard, The Greek East and the Latin West: A Study in the Christian Tradition, 1992].

            Archpriest Alexey Young goes on to explain that in the past, Church Councils were historically called in order to address errors and heresy by triumphantly proclaiming the faith. The Second Vatican Council (1963), however, had no such purpose. Instead, the doors of the Latin Church were thrown open to:

... naturalism, humanism, Marxism, liberalism, modernism, and renovation. Everything was “new”: the “new Church,” the “new priesthood,” the “new Liturgy,” the “new Christian,” etc. The council itself said that the Church must now take full account of “new forms of culture (mass culture) which give rise to new ways of thinking, acting and making use of leisure.” In other words, the Church must “adapt,” be “relevant,” and turn herself inside out, if necessary. Everything old and venerable could now be cast aside. Monks and nuns took off their habits and became social workers. The laity, at last free of Western Christian traditions, were permitted to experiment with so-called “Christian yoga” and “Christian zen,” to name just two of the stranger forms of spirituality that began to be dabbled in at the parochial level.

Politically, Christ Himself was now seen not as the Redeemer, but as the Revolutionary Liberator. This meant that the old moral restrictions, so heartily proclaimed and enforced from the pulpit prior to the Vatican Council were now no longer taught.

/.../ Towards the end of his life, Paul VI was stricken by the realization of what he had done during his reign. He realized in his last two years that something unimaginably ominous had been moving inexorably towards them, was already in their midst, and that it had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church, is around the altar,” he remarked somberly and helplessly.... Nothing he did could stem the onslaught on him — for had he not espoused a “people's church” where all had equal voice? — women who wanted to be priests, priests who wanted to be married ... homosexuals and divorced people who called for acceptance of their status on their terms, Marxist priests and bishops and [laypeople] who claimed his approval to destroy the social order.... It was the new “people” let loose on the old kingdom, and Paul had no defense against them. Increasingly he reacted with tears [The Rush to Embrace, pp. 42-44; emphasis added].

St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco (+1966) explained that Christ's promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church (Mt 16:18) is promised only to the True, Universal Church. However, upon those who have fallen away from it (such as the Roman Catholic Church) are fulfilled the words: “As a branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in Me” (Jn 15:4).