June 21, 2014 By Joseph P. Farrell

Pope Francis I and Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople Bartheolomeos are planning to hold an ecumenical love-in at Nicea, site of the first ecumenical council in 325, for the year 2025, on the 1700th anniversary of that council which gave, in one form or another, the creed used by most liturgical Christian churches to this day:

Christian Leaders May Return to Nicaea: What Does It Mean?

As the article points out, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, in spite of recent pronouncements from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of a nature that many Orthodox regard as "neo-papal", does not have nor hold a central authoritative office within Eastern Orthodoxy similar to the Pope in the Latin Church. Indeed, for many students of Church history, the growing assertion of papal claims were one principal cause, among many others differences, for the eventual break of communion between the two Churches.

The Atlantic's article raises the principle question: what does it mean? Such symbolic actions have occurred before, when then Pope Paul VI and then Patriarch Athenagoras agreed to lift their church's excommunications of each other. The trouble was, of course, Athenagoras spoke only for himself, and not for other Orthodox bishops, who retained those excommunications in their services. Thus, should any sort of mutual dogmatic statement or formal agreement of reunion emerge from the council, it will, in this author's opinion, probably be on Rome's, not Orthodoxy's, terms, since rumors have long abounded within the Orthodox world that the Ecumenical patriarchate itself is propped up largely by money coming from the Vatican. Any statement of formal union that might result at such a council, if it leaves intact all features of both churches, would, to traditional Orthodox, be highly problematic best. "Saints," such as the murderous Domingo (Dominic) Guzman, founder of the Inquisition, would have to be accepted, or at the minimum, it would have to be understood that Roman Catholics could go on honoring him as such. In the case of such formal agreements, there would be an inevitable schism within the Orthodox world, and if the Patriarchate of Moscow, arguably the most powerful and influential within Eastern Orthodoxy, were to concur in any such formal agreements or statements, it could provoke internal schisms within the Russian Church, and these in turn could weaken the government, or, conversely, lead to government interventions, or both. Should such agreements occur, and Moscow not accept them, it could lead to internal divisions between Greek Orthodox Church jurisdictions associated with Constantinople, and Slavic jurisdictions associated with Moscow, and further weakening the Orthodox world.

Indeed, that might be the hidden geopolitical objective. And that suggests that other geopolitical (and therefore financial) agendas may be in view. As we have repeatedly emphasized on this website, Mr. Putin and the BRICSA bloc have been constant thorns in the side of the western power structure, of which the Vatican is, to be sure, an integral part. One may be looking at an attempt to integrate Christendom by means of various "paper unions" designed ultimately to suborn Russia, the one remaining Orthodox power within the BRICSA bloc, for strictly speaking, any accord with Rome in which Rome does not renounce the papal claims and other theological issues, are not Orthodox, and therefore, impossible for Orthodoxy to enter into.

Thus, make no mistake about it, barring any change in the Russian government, Mr. Putin and whoever is the incumbent in the Patriarchate of Moscow in 2025, will face their biggest test of diplomacy, for it could be argued that this is the Atlanticist-globalist agenda at work, in the guise of ecumenism. In that respect, it would behoove all who contemplate the meaning of Rome's attempts to update itself from Vatican II on, to recall that at the Second Vatican Council, amid all the wonderful flowery rhetoric flowing out of its decrees, the language of one component of Roman Catholic doctrine did not change, and that was precise the component concerning the papal claims itself, which were asserted in all their fullness, and without any margin for misinterpretation.

See you on the flip side.

(MANY thanks to Mr. S.D. for bringing this to our attention.)