September 17, 2021

True Orthodox Diocese of Western Europe

Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC)

A Point of No Return by Protopresbyter Victor Melehov

54 min read



A Point of No Return
Protopresbyter Victor Melehov
Great Lent, 2021


Introduction


Considering all that has transpired this past year (lockdowns of homes and businesses, cities, states and countries – quarantines, masks, distancing – riots, burning and seizing cities, looting, targeting law-enforcement, shootings, murders and defunding police – open support and funding for socialism, anarchists and terrorist organizations by government officials – marginalizing Christians, closing places of worship, banning singing, communion, and meetings especially for prayer, etc.) all in the name of public health and safety, all in order to “flatten the curve,” all to fight the “pandemic,” all to eliminate the Covid-19 virus, we find that mankind has been attacked from within, and knows not how to respond.


We have all heard the patriotic call to action.  When caught contradicting himself by requiring masks to be worn, after having said they were useless, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, encouraged all to ignore his first position, not because he made a mistake, but because wearing a mask was “patriotic.” So, what action must we undertake?  Does it not seem to be more a call to inaction and obedient compliance to government overreach and control?  Put on your muzzle and sit!


We do not have to look far to see the irony of such edicts by our politicians.  We have seen how these mandates apply to the citizenry (even with fines and imprisonment – worldwide!).  Yet, the very politicians demanding such lock-step obedience shamelessly demonstrate how none of these edicts apply to them, or to their political causes.  They continue living as they always have, traveling world-wide whenever they desire in their limousines and jets, living in their separated and gated communities, all guarded and protected by armed security.  We have heard the same politicians justify large gatherings for protests, rioting, looting and burning cities, openly admitting that it is worth the risk of spreading the virus if it promotes their desired agenda, which appears to be the fundamental overthrow of the status quo in terms of personal freedoms and overall social norms for political/socialist goals.  Simultaneously, these same politicians forbid people to peacefully gather in places of worship.  The message becomes abundantly clear.  Peaceful and law-abiding citizenry must stay away from each other, wear masks and stay at home. Obey your government mandates regarding your personal behavior and conditions of house arrest, or you may be fined or even imprisoned! Meanwhile, anarchists and terrorists are encouraged to gather by the thousands (masks or no masks), deface property, tear down monuments, burn cities, and attack the police.  As for the rest – stay home, while we destroy your life!


In states run by more progressive leaders, police were told to stand-down, and not stop the destruction.  Many that were arrested for their criminal activity were soon released without even being charged.  For those that were charged, funds were established to pay the bail of such anarchists.  Even the Vice President of the United States was a notable supporter of such initiatives (Washington Examiner, March 29, 2021).  Finally, just to add absurdity to such hypocrisy, convicted criminals were released from prison so that they might not contract the virus under such close living conditions.  Does anyone expect them to obediently go home and quarantine?
It is interesting to note that at the time of the Bolshevik over-throw of the Russian government (1917), Vladimir Lenin and his Communist thugs released tens of thousands of criminals from prison.  Of course, this was intended to occupy the law-abiding citizenry with something else to worry about.  The following excerpts provide a perspective of those years, perhaps in light of our own times.


(21 March, 2008, Werth Nicolas, https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/node/2654.html)
The revolutions of 1917 in the Russian Empire led to extremely violent civil wars in 1918: civilian massacres, hostage takings, deportations of populations collectively considered as “enemies”….The Bolsheviks theorized violence to a far greater extent as “mass terror,” a central concept in Lenin’s works….The Bolsheviks, who were but a small minority in the country, encouraged all forms of social violence – violence on the part of soldiers deserting the decomposing Czarist army by the millions, violence of the peasant uprisings which broke out in the chaos of the autumn of 1917, violence of a displaced and famished urban proletariat. Most crucial to Lenin was succeeding to channel these different forms of violence under Party control in order to direct all violence at “class enemies,” who were already being described as “enemies of the people”…”Mass terror” then became the instrument of a social hygiene policy aimed to eliminate groups defined as “enemies” from the new society under construction….Enemies – the bourgeoisie, the landowners, popes and “kulaks”….In Leninist discourse, these enemies were reduced to the state of “harmful insects,” “lice,” “vermin,” “germs.” Lenin wrote that it was necessary to relentlessly “purify,” “clean” and “purge” Russian society of the “flees,” “bugs” and “parasites” infecting and polluting it (Lenin, How to organize the emulation., December 1917). It is undeniable that such language paved the way for murder by dehumanizing the victims who, through rhetorical trickery, remained imminent and mortal threats despite already being condemned by History. “Mass terror” was supposed to bring about a new, regenerated and purified world according to Bolsheviks…The following article (August 18, 1919) – among many other similar texts – published in the Krasnyi Mech (the Red Sword), the Kiev Cheka newspaper, strongly testifies to this:
“We reject the old morality and ‘humanity’ invented by the bourgeoisie in order to oppress and exploit the lower classes. Our morality does not have a precedent, our humanity is absolute because it rests on a new ideal: to destroy any form of oppression and violence. To us, everything is permitted because we are the very first to raise our swords not to oppress and enslave, but to release humanity from its chains… Blood? Let blood be shed! Only blood can dye the black flag of the pirate bourgeoisie, turning it once and for all into a red banner, flag of the Revolution. Only the old world’s final demise will free us forever from the return of the jackals.”
Does this sound somewhat familiar?  Just insert “racist” for any of the undesirables.  Although we find ourselves in the midst of a pandemic crisis, simultaneously, America’s cities are being burned and plundered (with no resistance) and its southern border is overrun by tens of thousands of illegal immigrants freely entering the country without even registering their names.  Meanwhile, American citizens are restricted from travel, at times, even between neighboring states.  Are these crises coincidental, or have the socialists learned how to repeat history, only in a “modern” way?


Today, we find society (on a global level) to be at a place where it has never been before.  To be sure, this place is not a “fork in the road.”  Somehow, while few were paying attention, the road of social direction had already been chosen, and this place, where we find ourselves now, is just a point along the way.


Specifically, we are witnessing a major societal transformation – worldwide, which actually began some time ago, and subsequently, through a series of such points of no return, has brought society to a world-wide state of fear, ironically looking to government and science as its last hope for health, prosperity, life and longevity.  It must be underscored that fear, and even superstition, overcomes one who has abandoned God.  And, is not today’s society more God-less, and more atheistic, than ever before in its history?


Throughout the history of mankind there have been events and decisions made that might be considered points of no return.  In other words, due to certain circumstances, people have come to a fork in the road, and chosen one direction over all others.  For example, history has on record: the fall of Adam, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Jews’ rejection of the Messiah, the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ, Arianism, the Monophysite heresy, the fall of the Church of Rome, the Protestant Reformation, the murder and martyrdom of the Russian Royal Family, the capitulation of all the major Orthodox Churches (World Orthodoxy) to Ecumenism, etc., (just to name a few).  Such points all changed life as it was in the past, and forced the conditions for a different future – some on a local level, while others globally.


A Perspective


Here, let us consider that contrary to the mindset of contemporary secular society, when one speaks of the history of mankind, it must be understood that all of it is inevitably tied to God and the Church – yes, even the very point in history where we find ourselves today.  Throughout our history, from Adam and Eve through today, there is a repeating theme – man either seeks God, or man attempts to be God.


It must be noted that the history of mankind is replete with recorded accounts of man seeking God, and seeking ways to communicate with Him.  The Old Testament is a prime example of this.  We would not know much about the “chosen people,” of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor the history of those days, without the Old Testament. There we find the Psalms of King David, and the many prophecies of prophets communicating with God, foretelling the coming of the Messiah, whose purpose would be to redeem man’s fallen nature – to provide a pathway for our salvation.  This point is almost entirely lost on contemporary society, which all too often views Christianity as just another religion teaching people to do “good.”  However, this is far from reality.  Christianity is not just another “feel good” religion with “profound” cliches and slogans.  Our Savior’s plan, his purpose for us, – from His Incarnation to His Resurrection – was to redeem our fallen nature, and have us live a life in Christ – a life of mercy, not sacrifice, nor vengeance.  This Redemption was for us, so that we may live within the Church, the Ark of Salvation, being in the world, but not of the world.  For those who awaited His First Coming, for those who continue to live by His example and instruction, for those in the Ark, He has brought peace and love, as the angels said at His birth, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” (Luke 2:12). Yet there are those in this world who reject His love.  Regarding such, our Savior tells us, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34-36)


Of course, there were those of the nations, who were not of the chosen.  Yet, they too sought the truth of a higher being, albeit often through paganism or idolatry.  During the early years of the 1900’s, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) wrote that it was a phenomenon to see so many atheists in his day.  He wrote that during the centuries prior to last, finding an atheist was a rarity.  People sought to understand their creator. This is why the Apostles had so much success in bringing Christianity to the far ends of the inhabited world.  People were striving to draw closer to God, and the message they received from the Apostles was one of redemption, mercy and salvation – not a message of vengeance and pride as the religions of the world taught then, and continue to teach to this day.


Secular society with its atheists and God-haters summarily rejects the notion that our lives and history are intertwined with God’s mercy, love and presence.  Yet, through their focused and aggressive rejection of God and the Church, they only confirm that the history of mankind is actually tied to God and the Church, specifically Christianity.  What these secularists do not understand is that when they accepted such a persuasion, they experienced their own personal point of no return, rejecting that mankind is tied to God even from birth.  In rejecting God, they participate in the repeating theme – man either seeks God, or man attempts to be God.  Reading their “creed,” it becomes evident that they elevate man (i.e., themselves) and his reason-ability above all of creation.  Well, God did put man in charge of creation, after He created man.  The secular humanists eagerly accept this God-given authority (and it is a God-given human characteristic property to sense this authority), but then they simultaneously reject the Creator, replacing Him with their own (God-given) finite wisdom and reason-ability.
 
Today, we hear secular society speak of the separation of church and state as a normal socio-political goal, as if it were even possible.  Such governments pay lip-service to mutually respectful and equal coexistence.  Yet, this concept gradually manifests a required growing level of tolerance from the church for the government.  How?  The secular government holds all the power to define the conditions for such a relationship.  The secular government demands that people ignore their faith when they make political decisions.  Yet, demanding such a level of tolerance for a government is just the first step of many others, which such government will demand in time after achieving each.  The same secular society, as it departs further from God (through its own will), is never satisfied with even sharing the same sentence with God’s name in it.  As society has become accustomed to this arrangement, we now witness secularists demanding a world where even the mention of God is not allowed.  This is how it begins – appearing to strike a compromise of tolerance, albeit already on the secular humanists’ own conquered terms and territory.  God may have His Church, but they (the secular humanists) will rule the government – already from the position of secular atheism, of course.  The truth here is that as much as the body cannot work good deeds, or sin, separately from the soul, even so, as one believes, so will one act.  To demand otherwise will only lead to the splitting of one’s being – a state of schizophrenia.  As we have already witnessed, this first demand has led many an elected statesman (of weak character) to buckle under the ridicule of atheists and shamefully hide their religious beliefs, while voting to support the abortion of the unborn, or limiting the rights and presence of religion, etc.  Ultimately, religion or not, as one believes, so one will act.


It is important to further underscore here that the secularism of which we speak is not some harmless, amorphous ideology with no structure or direction.  We are speaking of a defined society with a philosophy (creed) and a position.  These are called Secular Humanists.  Here is how they define themselves in their own publication called “Free Inquiry:”


WHAT IS SECULAR HUMANISM?
Let’s examine these items one by one:
A comprehensive, nonreligious lifestance
Secular humanism is comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity. Thus, it is broader than atheism, which concerns only the nonexistence of god or the supernatural. Important as that may be, there’s a lot more to life … and secular humanism addresses it.
Secular humanism is nonreligious, espousing no belief in a realm or beings imagined to transcend ordinary experience.
Secular humanism is a lifestance, or what Council for Secular Humanism founder Paul Kurtz has termed a eupraxsophy: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life. As a secular lifestance, secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life.
A naturalistic philosophy
Secular humanism is philosophically naturalistic. It holds that nature (the world of everyday physical experience) is all there is, and that reliable knowledge is best obtained when we query nature using the scientific method. Naturalism asserts that supernatural entities like God do not exist, and warns us that knowledge gained without appeal to the natural world and without impartial review by multiple observers is unreliable.
Secular. “Pertaining to the world or things not spiritual or sacred.”
Humanism. “Any system of thought or action concerned with the interests or ideals of people … the intellectual and cultural movement … characterized by an emphasis on human interests rather than … religion.”
— Webster’s Dictionary
A cosmic outlook rooted in science
Secular humanism provides a cosmic outlook—a world-view in the broadest sense, grounding our lives in the context of our universe and relying on methods demonstrated by science. Secular humanists see themselves as undesigned, unintended beings who arose through evolution, possessing unique attributes of self-awareness and moral agency.
A consequentialist ethical system
Secular humanists hold that ethics is consequential, to be judged by results. This is in contrast to so-called command ethics, in which right and wrong are defined in advance and attributed to divine authority. “No god will save us,” declared Humanist Manifesto II (1973), “we must save ourselves.” Secular humanists seek to develop and improve their ethical principles by examining the results they yield in the lives of real men and women.
(Note from the author: For an in-depth analysis of Secular Humanism, see “Secular Humansim: An Orthodox Perspective.” This is a scholarly work written and presented by the Rev. John Bockman, Priest, for the 1987 Orthodox Conference, sponsored by the Russian Orthodox Church of the Holy Resurrection, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. Presently available through the St. Nectarios Press, Seattle, Washington.)


Does this sound familiar?  We are already feeling the constraint of these tenets in our daily lives.  Are we not witnessing certain opinions, thoughts and words being ridiculed and even banned?   We must not ignore what is transpiring on a global level.  Secular Humanism is a religion unto itself, and it is a dominant one.  Simply put, Secular Humanism is a not-so-new form of idolatry.  Instead of making idols representing man’s own passions, here, man worships himself – passions and all, included.  Arguably, this is the direction of our contemporary society world-wide.  How far has it gone?  Well, first consider the demands of their starting point – separation of church and state.  Now, consider how difficult it is to speak of religion at work or at social gatherings.  Orthodox Christians are reluctant to make the sign of the cross in public even before meals.  We have gone from “separation of church and state” to separation of church and society.


Finally, the perspective through which we must view the condition of our contemporary social state is not political.  It is not about conservatives versus liberals or progressives.  We are where we are because of the world’s moral state.  This cannot be ignored.  And if it is a moral issue, it stands to reason that it is a spiritual issue.


How Did We Get Here?


“The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matthew 6:22-24)


Cataracts of the eye are a physical ailment usually brought on with age.  As a person gets older, the eye’s lens gradually becomes clouded, blocking one’s vision, possibly to the point of blindness.  This is a gradual process over which one has little to no control.  The point of this metaphor is to emphasize the aging of the eye, and the gradual onset of physical darkness.  The process is slow and not noticeable until much later in life.


Spiritually speaking, the darkness of a person’s soul also does not overtake one’s innocence overnight.  Here, however, one has control through one’s personal free will.  Yet, if one is not watchful over spiritual matters, this, too, becomes a gradual process where one’s spiritual eye become less keen, and more coarse, until eventually one’s soul experiences our Savior’s words – “If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!”


The collective spiritual state of society devolves in a similar fashion to a point of no return, where we hear each other asking, “How did we get here?” – and then yearn and beg for the “normal” days of old.  Yet at this point, what “norm” is it that we seek?  Is it a return to the days when we recognized only a dozen genders?  (Today, American society recognizes close to 40 different genders!  How’s that for “following the science?”).  Perhaps we would prefer the days when same sex marriages became unlegislated law?  Or, how about the days when homosexual life-styles became legal, or the days before openly homosexual clergy?  Perhaps we might consider returning to the days before the systematic killing of the nation’s children (abortion) became legal?  Well, that was more than a half century ago.  Do we see how what was “normal” changed and gradually became acceptable to where we find ourselves today?  Do we see the pattern involving the morality and spirituality of society?  They are linked, and as one degenerates, the other follows.  And for the politicians in the audience, do we see how what was liberal, gradually became conservative?


The point of this letter is to bring the reader to the realization that there have been many such points of no return leading to the one that we are presently passing.  If we wish to seek normalcy, we must seek to be one with God.  For this, society must look back through many more years than the hapless 20th century, so riddled with points of no return.  Indeed, look back – not years, but centuries.  This “cataract” did not come upon us overnight.


Some of The History


Secular Humanism is a product of Western society.  More specifically, its roots lie with the fall of the Church of Rome (1054).  This may appear to be a huge leap for the reader to take.  Yet, we speak here of the many large and small points of no return which brought the world to where it is today.  Let us not forget.  Our history, and our future, is tied to God and His Church.  If we live in concert with His Will, and in His Love, we enjoy the fruits of His Vineyard.  When, through our own will, we choose to leave and reject God, He grieves for us, but will not chase us.  We have our own will.  At that point, as in the parable of the prodigal son, if we leave God and His Church, the Ark of Salvation, we find ourselves in the sea of this secular world, just waiting to swallow and drown us.  To return to a state of what was considered normal, the Church offers us repentance.  Our Savior confirms this when He says, “I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth” (Luke 15:10).  However, when one chooses not to repent, the opposite is also true – all of creation suffers when one falls away from the Church.  How much more does all of creation suffer when it is an entire church, a patriarchate, that falls away from the Church.


With this in mind, let us look at a brief history of important events in Western society beginning from the year 1054, which initially affected the future of Western civilization, and later, as we see today, that of the entire world.


The Church of Rome broke away from the other Churches of the Christian world (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch) in 1054 over Rome’s demand for papal supremacy.  (It needs to be noted that papal supremacy is not papal infallibility.  That came later.). Having been in existence and functioning for some 1,000 years, the other four Churches refused to accept this administrative innovation, which would result in stripping away each Church’s autocephalous status, and turn them all into dioceses of the pope of Rome.  Through this schism, through breaking with its own 1,000 year legacy, where the pope (patriarch) of Rome was recognized as being first among equals by the other Churches, the Church of Rome passed through a point of no return.  This point marked the beginning of the fall of the Roman Church.  We do not speak here of Rome’s fall as an institution.  The papal institution has lasted for almost 1,000 years since that point, and continues to date.  We speak here of a spiritual fall – a departure from the Commandments, Faith and the love of God.  We speak of the point where Rome began its departure from the Church of Christ.  This is a prime example of how returning (i.e., going back) to such a fork in the road is often difficult, if not impossible.  However, as we know, with God, all things are possible.  Although, we cannot change the past we can certainly amend such points for the future.  Here, be it an individual, a city, or an entire nation, there must be repentance.  To work a change, there must be a change – for better, or for worse.  Yet, today, through many such points over time, even the concept of repentance has been eroded to an act of formality at best.


Since that year, there has been no repentance from Rome.  The world has watched Rome fall from being a part of the Church to becoming just a form of a religion, albeit the chief institution of Protestant sects, of which it became the co-founder, and a government unto itself.


Within a century of breaking from the other four Churches of Christendom, Rome formed a formidable army – the Crusaders.  Their stated purpose was to rid the Holy Land of Moslems.  Along the way, however, the Crusaders sacked and pillaged Orthodox Christian countries, cities and churches.  Would Christ our Savior Himself, the Apostles, or the Fathers of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, or any of the other Churches of Christendom ever form, and support, an army?  This is not the behavior, purpose or goal of the Church.  Within 100 years, the former Church of Rome became a government institution, a state with its own (quite powerful) army.  And, the pope’s worldly aggression did not end with the Crusades.  Let’s not forget the forced conversion of nations ranging from Eastern Europe to the New World.


After assuming papal supremacy (doctrine of papal primacy) in 1054, the doctrine of papal infallibility was introduced somewhere between the 14th and 15th centuries.  With time, it became accepted by the Roman World all the more.  It was finally defined as a dogma in 1870. This is where the former Roman Church formally, finally and completely abandoned the conciliarity (sobornost) of the Apostles, the 7 Ecumenical Councils, and all councils of the Church (local and otherwise).  (Please note: Conciliarity or sobornost is the cornerstone for the decision-making process of the Church from Apostolic times, where each apostle, and later each bishop, archbishop, metropolitan, or patriarch, had one vote in any decision, regardless of his prominence or position of responsibility.)  It must be understood, of course, this was not as if sobornost suddenly disappeared to everyone’s surprise.  It had been eroding ever since Rome’s schism from the Church in 1054 – for some 800 years.  By then, it most likely came as no surprise at all.   It was announced as follows:
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (see Denziger §1839).— Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv


With no other patriarchs or churches powerful enough to check Rome’s ambitions and acquisitions, confusion regarding the understanding of genuine Church scripture and theology began to take hold of the minds of Western (Roman) scholars.  As an example, one major deviation in Western theology was the perceived need to create the heresy of the Immaculate Conception, which made the birth of the Theotokos an exception to all other births.  An intense and prolonged movement began by declaring that she was born without sin (i.e., Original).  Despite the fact that the early Church (of the first 1,000 years, A.D.) had no such misconceptions, no such feasts, and even no such thoughts, the Council of Basel (1431) first declared the Immaculate Conception to be a “pious opinion.”  By 1571 it was already celebrated as a feast day (Dec. 8th).  By 1854, the Immaculate Conception was declared to be a dogma.  Of course, when analyzed, this heresy deprives the Most Holy Theotokos of her human nature, and ultimately of her God-given gift of self will.  In short, this Roman dogma has God forcing the Holy Theotokos to be born immaculately (without Original Sin), and simultaneously depriving our Savior Himself of “taking on the sins of the world,” thus making God’s plan for man’s redemption a perfunctory act of formality. (Author’s Note: For an in-depth analysis of this Latin heresy, please read “The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God” by our Holy Hierarch, Archbishop John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai and San Francisco, printed by the St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2012)


Then, there was the Inquisition.  Not only did the Roman pope quickly develop an army of his own, he also created a “judicial system” to enforce his power.  The Church does not punish people who disagree with it by using torture and execution.  The Church does not burn heretics at the stake.  A heretic is one who believes contrary to the ecclesiology of the Church.  The Church considers a heretic to be outside of the Church.  Is that not punishment enough?  Here are commonly accepted facts regarding the Roman papal “judicial system” easily found on the internet under Wikipedia and other sites:


“The Inquisition, in historical ecclesiastical terminology also referred to as the “Holy Inquisition”, was a group of institutions within the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. Torture and violence were used by Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics. The Inquisition started in 12th-century France to combat religious dissent, particularly among the Cathars and the Waldensians. The inquisitorial courts from this time until the mid-15th century are together known as the Medieval Inquisition. Other groups investigated during the Medieval Inquisition, which primarily took place in France and Italy, included the Spiritual Franciscans, the Hussites (followers of Jan Hus) and the Beguines. Beginning in the 1250s, inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order, replacing the earlier practice of using local clergy as judges. 
During the Late Middle Ages and the early Renaissance, the scope of the Inquisition grew significantly in response to the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. It expanded to other European countries, resulting in the Spanish Inquisition and the Portuguese Inquisition. The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions focused particularly on the anusim (people who were forced to abandon Judaism against their will) and on Muslim converts to Catholicism. The scale of the persecution of converted Muslims and converted Jews in Spain and Portugal was the result of suspicions that they had secretly reverted to their previous religions. 
During this time, Spain and Portugal operated inquisitorial courts not only in Europe, but also throughout their empires in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. This resulted in the Goa Inquisition, the Peruvian Inquisition, and the Mexican Inquisition, among others. 
With the exception of the Papal States, the institution of the Inquisition was abolished in the early 19th century, after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe and the Spanish American wars of independence in the Americas. The institution survived as part of the Roman Curia, but in 1908 it was renamed the “Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.” In 1965 it became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 


The Protestant Reformation began in 1517 with Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, priest and professor, who left his priesthood and married a nun, whom he had helped escape from her monastery. Of course, there is much which can be written about this revolution and how it affected Western society.  It quickly spread and spawned a history, a culture, and a new religion of its own.  Briefly stated, Luther rejected all things papal, including the Church prior to 1054.  He founded his new religion primarily on the New Testament, ignoring all else, including the all-important concept of Apostolic Succession.  The apostles ordained bishops, priests and deacons.  Luther’s Protestant religion would have none of these, only ministers – no priesthood, no sacraments, no tradition, no Apostolic Succession, no continuation of the Church of Christ.  This was a man-made religion that had no connection to the Apostles, and no claims to Christianity.  Protestant “churches” were simple meeting halls where sermons were preached by religious philosophers with no ties or responsibility to continue the Faith.  They each simply made up their own.  The Protestant religion became popular for several reasons:


1. The popes had already rejected their connection to the early Church.  Thus, Luther’s revolt, not looking back to Church history, only took the “baton” from there by rejecting the unpopular. 
2. The popes imposed various rules of tokens and indulgences for the “purchase” of one’s salvation.
3. With their new-found infallibility, the popes behaved as dictators, making rules in their own favor as needed.  Luther merely adopted the same tactics in a populist protest to continue the same.
4. Luther’s rebellion allowed for every protestant to become his own pope.  Hence, allowing for the formation of over 2,000 protestant sects to date.


Finally, it needs to be noted that Luther, along with the post 1054 popes, are co-founders of the Protestant religion.  Although appearing to be diametrically opposed, both are protestant in their own way.  How?  It can be successfully argued that the first protestant was Pope Leo IX.  He insisted on papal supremacy, thereby, rejecting the Apostolic concept of decision-making through a council of equals.  In other words, he protested against the tradition of the Church since Apostolic times.  Thus, the subsequent popes, and their actions which followed, all set the example for the formation of Protestantism through Luther’s 16th century rebellion, which continues through such schisms to date.  Hence, both Luther and the popes are co-founders.  Furthermore, both religions are inseparably bound.  If there was no Roman Catholicism (its form of protestantism), there would be nothing for Luther’s Protestants to protest.


Then there was the Gregorian calendar.  It is named after Pope Gregory the XIII, who introduced it in 1582.  Presently, the Orthodox world refers to it as the “new calendar.”  It represents much more.  The Gregorian Calendar was not only an innovation (i.e., “new”) it was (and remains) a clear rejection of the Julian Calendar.  The papal scientists claimed that it was more astronomically accurate (according to the instruments and science of the time).  Hence, their justification of the need for replacing the Julian Calendar.


Presently, the Orthodox world refers to the Julian as the “old calendar.”  Here even moreso, it represents a much greater event and an important accomplishment.  The Julian Calendar was established in 325 by the First Ecumenical Council.  This all-important council, gathered by the Emperor Constantine, decided many historic issues for all time.  For example: The four Gospels, which we continue to use today, were confirmed as genuine (as opposed to other apocryphal versions in circulation at that time).  The determination of the date for Pascha was established.  The Nicean Creed was defined. Arianism was condemned as a heresy.  And, of course, the Church Calendar (Julian Calendar) was established for all Christians to be able to celebrate the holy feasts together on the same day.  The inaccuracy of the Julian Calendar was known at the time of the 1st Ecumenical Council.  This was not as important for the fathers at that Council as was the determination of the date for Pascha with its associated feast days, and the creation of the entire liturgical cycle, joining the movement of celestial bodies with that of the earth and feasts of the Church.  Holy fathers such as St. Nicholas, St. Spyridon, and others were participants in these decisions.  The decisions of the 1st Ecumenical Council, which ratified the Council of the Apostles, from where we have the Canons of the Apostles, became a benchmark for the subsequent 6 Ecumenical Councils.  All 7 Ecumenical Councils, and all the local councils since the 1st Ecumenical Council, have ratified each previous council.  So, what has Pope Gregory XIII’s decision to create a “more accurate” calendar actually accomplished?  In truth, it put the final nail into the coffin of the Roman Schism of 1054.  By rejecting the decision of the 1st Ecumenical Council, a decision ratified by the Church of Christ until this day, Rome had rejected the decisions of the Church, even from the Council of the Apostles.  Rome no longer celebrated the feasts along with all other Christians.  Rome chose to celebrate Pascha apart from its former brethren.  Once again, Rome had already cut itself off from its former brethren administratively, canonically, and to a great extent in terms of ecclesiology.  Now, by rejecting the Julian Calendar, Rome severed itself from the Church of Christ liturgically.  One might say that at this point there should be no doubt that the Church of Rome is no longer a Church of Christ, but an unfortunate and poorly articulated protestant religion of Rome, and the rest of the West, which it continues to represent.


Then, there was Rome’s relationship to science.  Orthodox Christians view science to be a study of God’s creation.  As science hobbled along, proving and disproving its theories through observation, and research, the Churches of the East never denied its place in improving the quality of life.  To the contrary, in the West, Rome viewed science as a competitor.  Why so?  The Churches of the East were focused on the spiritual, the salvation of mankind.  Rome was focused on the worldly, the power of armies, and the subjugation of opposing thought of any kind – one could not question the pope!  His decisions (hence, his thinking) must be infallible.  The popes not only tortured and killed “heretics,” they also persecuted scientists who dared say the Earth was round and went about the Sun (i.e., Copernicus, Galileo and others).  Rome promoted its own version of “acceptable science.”  All too often, it was a false and indefensible position, which only led to its embarrassment.


Unfortunately, Rome’s militant, heretical presence (and influence) did not end in the 16th or even 17th century.  Rome, along with the rest of the Western world it had subjugated, continued to sink further, both morally and spiritually, to date.  Rome had departed from being a Church with its glorious martyric and theological 1,000 year history, to becoming a powerful and wealthy sect, an institution, which, specifically, over the last 150 years has taken its Western world to a collective depth hitherto unthought of.  Let’s not forget the other “contributions” of the Roman and Protestant religions to the world.  Reacting to their self-serving over-reach, these two religions spawned adverse ideologies with their revolutions.  Hence, Free-Masonry, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Atheism, Secular Humanism, Ecumenism, and their associated revolutions, all formed in the West as a result of, or in defiance to, Roman and Protestant ideology.


Today, we have come to see the “fruits of their labors.”  The Roman Church has become riddled with homosexual and pedophile clergy, who openly doubt the Resurrection of Christ.  The protestant religions are no greater than their founder, Rome.  They, of course, had lost their priesthood altogether.  They never had the sacraments.  They burned heretics, and “witches” at the stake.  Now, they have women and homosexuals as pastors.  They promote same-sex marriages.  They never had a clear understanding of scripture, nor of apostolic succession.  With them, the situation has only gotten worse.  Given such conditions of spiritual decay, these western religions gave birth to secularism.  One might say that this was a reaction to the anti-Christian cruelty and hypocrisy of the papal institution.  Anti-church sentiment grew and revolutions took place.  France had a very bloody revolution, which certainly did not spare the religious.  Masonry took root.  Marxism, socialism, and Communism developed.  Although western society likes to think that its Dark Ages led to the enlightened Renaissance, from a Christian spiritual perspective, one might say the Dark Ages of the West only led to darker ages in its future.   Given this brief summary of Rome’s deteriorating history, one can successfully argue that, for the Western world, 1054 turned out to be a point of no return.


Unfortunately, the West’s power and glamour gradually attracted the Eastern World’s interest and engagement, in some cases to a point of envy.  The influence of the western religions would overflow their boundaries and poison the Churches of the East.  Today we witness those “fruits” within what is called “World Orthodoxy.”  Here we find the remnants of what used to be the ancient Sees of the East, now fallen to the heresy of Ecumenism.


And Now


Since the winter of 2019-20, we have witnessed a global event which most could never have expected – a virus driven world-wide pandemic was announced.  Those who know their history, know that pandemics have come and gone.  Although there was suffering, the human body’s immune system would eventually conquer such maladies.


The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a pandemic as: “An outbreak of a disease that occurs over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affects a significant proportion of the population: a pandemic outbreak of a disease.”
MedicineNet.com defines a what it calls a true pandemic as: “An epidemic (a sudden outbreak) that becomes very widespread and affects a whole region, a continent, or the world due to a susceptible population. By definition, a true pandemic causes a high degree of mortality (death).”


So, what is so unusual or unexpected with the pandemic of the past year?  As was initially announced by the medical and pharmaceutical professions, along with politicians standing behind the so-called “science,” this virus would mostly affect the elderly (over 70 years of age), especially those with other health complications – “co-morbidities.”  Then, we were told, as published by WebMD and other internet sources, “the overall COVID-19 recovery rate is between 97% and 99.75%” (August 07, 2020, Coronavirus Recovery).  In other words, most of the infected population would either successfully recover, or would not show any symptoms of infections.  Yet, it was projected that millions would die.  In spite of these contradictory statistics, the entire world was easily driven (even as cattle to the slaughter) into a dark cloud of fear.  Fear of what (as anyone should have immediately asked)?  News of the unknown, an “ominous and deadly virus,” gripped the world before anyone even knew anyone else, who might know of anyone with such symptoms.  The world immediately responded to the mandates of world leaders calling all to obey and lock-down, stay at home, social distance, and then wear a mask.


So, what was the fear that caused such mindless obedience – giving up one’s free will?  It was the fear of death.  As if no one had ever died before, or ever will die, society fell to its knees in prostration before the altar of science, begging to, at least somehow, prolong its hapless existence.  Why?  Because the love for God had waxed cold – worldwide.  Because God’s loving commandments for our good life had either been twisted or entirely ignored.  Because morality had long ago become a relative issue allowing immorality to command the norm.  Because there has been no repentance for man’s acceptance of such banality, which has also become the norm.  Indeed, on occasion, some grumbled – this is not right(!) – but then continued in their spirit of compromise (as long as it does not affect me – today).  In matters of Faith, there can be no compromise, or we see what happens.  In spite of Christ’s promise of the Kingdom of Heaven – life after death – man has allowed the passage of many such points of no return to the extent that the world has come to reject God.  Without God, the devil’s darkness of fear has begun to set in.  That inevitability, which man has lived with since the fall of Adam, has now been used to bind him with chains of fear.  Man submits his greatest treasure, his free will, as an offering. With arms and feet extended, man pathetically seeks the spiritual manacles of iron from his enemy, masked as “science,” hoping to be delivered from such suffering.  The dark irony here is that neither his enemy, nor science, provide even a glimmer of such an exchange.  Indeed, they can lie, and, indeed, they do.  Yet, even their lies, albeit somewhat veiled in the tapestry of deceit, are, nonetheless, transparent to those who have not lost their faith altogether.  Why? Because they know they have no such power.  Let us take courage and remember that only Christ who has “risen from the dead, trampling down death by death,” has the power to bestow to bestow life to those in the grave.  Knowing this, Christians have kept their free will through famine, war, pestilence, persecutions, and even pandemics.


Returning to the topic of pandemics, is this a pandemic?  Taking the projection given to us by science, by now we should have experienced millions upon millions of deaths world-wide.  Given that the severity of the scientists’ prediction did not take place, we must thank God, for His mercy that is still with us.


The following chart provides us with some perspectives by giving a comparison of recorded pandemics since the Black Death.  It is important to note that the Black Death, at that time, eliminated 51% of Europe’s population (200 million people).  That means that everyone must have known someone who had died from this pandemic, not to mention knowing countless people who were infected and had possibly recovered.  As the chart mentions, it took Europe 200 years to recover its population – that is 8 generations.


The Spanish Flu, to which the Covid-19 pandemic is often compared, took 2.5% of the world’s population (45 million people).


HIV/AIDS, which most of us remember, took 0.7% of the world’s population (30 million people).  We might recall how, at that time, the scientists were predicting that one out of ten people would become infected with this disease (10% of the population!).  In other words, HIV/AIDS would affect the world almost as severely as Smallpox.  We certainly needed a vaccine!  Well, as we know, people did not over-react with fear.  The world-wide “iron curtain regime” did not come down upon society.  HIV/AIDS lost its pandemic threat.  No vaccine was ever developed.  Yet, might this have been a trial run to test the fear-factor?


To date, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken 0.03% of the world’s population (2.7 million people).  Let us remember that in August, 2020, the U.S. Center for Disease Control announced on its website that the total figure for the United States had been over-inflated by some 94%.  Since then, this statement was denied and removed from all possible sources.  Why?


Even allowing the inflated statistics from the U.S. Center for Disease Control to remain, this pandemic would not be unlike any other form of the annual flu.  As more evidence, contrary to dire predictions, the hospitals did not become overcrowded, and did not require additional outside facilities as feared.  However, the news media and politicians continued to infuse the public with fear.  Two hospital ships, provided by the US Navy, were dispatched to the ports of New York and Los Angeles.  Each ship had 1,000 beds, and each ship was staffed by 1,200 health care professionals. As published in the Navy USNI News: “Public excitement and relief greeted the March arrival of the Navy’s hospital ships in Los Angeles and New York City for their COVID-19 relief mission. But the excitement faded as the ships treated fewer than expected COVID-19 patients and left for their homeports with muted fanfare.  USNS Mercy left the port of Los Angeles on May 15 after treating only 77 non-infected patients. The Norfolk, Va.-based USNS Comfort had returned to Virginia two weeks earlier after treating 182 patients in its month in New York City.” (USNI News May 25-26, 2020)


As stated above, the Center for Disease Control did admit and publish (although later denied without reason) that it’s death count attributed to Covid was inflated by as much as 94%.  Why such a large margin of error?  Perhaps there was a financial incentive?  On April 9th, 2020, Fox News published the following: “Dr. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota family physician who is also a Republican state senator, told The Ingraham Angle ‘Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you’ll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much.’”  Might not this be considered a government provided incentive for hospitals to inflate their own statistics?  What would be the need for this payout?  Is it possible there was a need to fuel society’s fear all the more?


Former President Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, once said:
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”  This insidious remark apparently became a goal for many progressive politicians.  In spite of the relatively low numbers of infections and deaths, the flames of fear continued to be stoked.  The pandemic must be stopped!  A world-wide remedy – a historic precedent – was implemented.  Even before anyone knew anyone else who might be infected, the leaders of every country and every state all responded in immediate lockstep.  Could it be that such a regiment was agreed upon and practiced well before the pandemic came to be?
When the Covid-19 pandemic was first announced, the public was told that it came from a bat sold at a wet-market in Wuhan, China. To further convince the naïve, a graphic photo of the culprit was provided.  Indeed, this was the proverbial “bat from hell.”  And, then the after-thought: people eat these things?  Who could now doubt the source of this monster virus?
But then, it was leaked that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was located nearby.  Certainly, we were told, the virus could not have come from there.  Shortly thereafter, we learned that it most likely did come from there.  For some reason, the debate continues to date. (We have Wuhan bat deniers vs. the Wuhan lab deniers!)  Meanwhile, as we witnessed the United States blaming China, and China blaming the United States (saying that US soldiers secretly brought the virus to China), we discover that there has been a long-standing relationship between the two countries regarding virology – its research, development and funding.  BMC (biomedicalcentral.com, Volume 19 Supplement 3) reports the following:
The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) underscored the importance of influenza detection and response in China. From 2004, the Chinese National Influenza Center (CNIC) and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USCDC) initiated Cooperative Agreements to build capacity in influenza surveillance in China.
From 2004 to 2014, CNIC and USCDC collaborated on the following activities: 1) developing human technical expertise in virology and epidemiology in China; 2) developing a comprehensive influenza surveillance system by enhancing influenza-like illness (ILI) reporting and virological characterization; 3) strengthening analysis, utilization and dissemination of surveillance data; and 4) improving early response to influenza viruses with pandemic potential.”
Then, specifically regarding the Wuhan laboratory’s presence in the United States and Canada, Wikipedia states the following:
“The Laboratory has strong ties to the Galveston National Laboratory in the University of Texas. It also had strong ties with Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory until WIV staff scientists Xiangguo Qiu and her husband Keding Cheng, who were also remunerated by the Canadian government, were escorted from the Canadian lab for undisclosed reasons in July 2019. 
And then, if we “follow the money”:
New York Post published the following on February 21, 2021:
“The Wuhan Institute of Virology remains the most likely source of the coronavirus pandemic, yet it is set to receive US taxpayer dollars for the next three years. Worse, the cash will fund more animal research.  The National Institutes of Health told the Daily Caller that the Wuhan lab has an active Foreign Assurance file that authorizes it for US funding until 2024.”
As we pull together what information there is available, we find that there is much more to be explained.  Instead, to the point of a possible conspired cover-up, not much is being said.  Yet, much is being required.  Here, as usual, to get to the correct answer, one must ask the appropriate question.  Unfortunately, few questions are being asked.
Instead, the entire world’s population, whether infected or not, was forced to “lock-down” (an actual house arrest), avoid any close contact with other people, and wear a face-covering – travel was forbidden – for the first time, the world experienced a global “iron curtain.”  Furthermore, never before, in the history of the world, have all those who were physically well been forced to quarantine.  In the past, when grave illnesses would strike, it was only the ill who were required to quarantine.  The rest were obliged to continue working and provide for the sick.
Given the complexity of this world – the various forms of government, politics, ideology, religions, etc., one could successfully argue that such coordinated global events do not happen by chance.  At the risk of being dismissed as a “conspiracy-theorist or fear-monger,” in a world where getting global consensus can be humorously likened to herding cats, we must admit that the global alignment of such an event cannot go unnoticed.  The question begs to be asked: Could this have been planned in advance for a precise and smooth implementation – a revolutionary event aimed at significantly changing society worldwide?  Using a “crisis,” such as the fear of disease and death from an unseen enemy, a virus, which anyone might be unwittingly carrying about could have far reaching results for those with far-reaching goals.  Whether intentional or not, the world witnessed the results over the past year.  This fear cast a dark cloud-cover over the world, creating a situation where people began to suspect and fear everyone else.


Out of fear, people obediently agreed to stay in their homes – under house arrest, hoping and waiting for relief and redemption from such oppression.  Yet seldom did one find anyone asking: “Why is this necessary?  Who stands to gain from this?  Why is all of civilization sacrificing its freedom for some morsel of perceived safety?  As we watch the crystallization of global rule simply through the perspective of global obedience, we must ask, “Who is in control over this?”  If one does ask the obvious questions begging to be asked, we have heard the dismissive answer; You must be some conspiracy theory adherent!  This answer, when accompanied by the all-knowing smile of sarcastic ridicule, is enough to make the less-informed (but still curious) go back to fighting the epidemic through their inactive obedience.  Wear the mask! Stay away! Stay at home!  Get tested!  Get the vaccine!  You have enough to do here, so stop asking questions!  On the other hand, what if a conspiracy is not just a theory?


We must understand that what we have witnessed to date was not a revolution caused by a spontaneous and random evolution.  Revolutions are never such.  Revolutions, by nature, are spawned by an intense and ideologically fervent minority who surprise and overwhelm the unsuspecting majority.  Historically, we see that they are usually violent and deadly, and lead to further revolutions in the future.  These are often points of no return.


Given its spiritual and morally deficient state, and the Godlessness of contemporary global society, exposing the world to fear in general, and more specifically, to the fear of its mortality, has shown how ready and willing the world has become to exchange its freedom for the flimsy promise of safety.  Are we witnessing the first squeezes from satan’s vice?  Is the entirety of global civilization about to begin losing its free will?


This point marks a state of fear caused by world-wide moral and spiritual stagnation, a decomposition festering for generations, resulting in a world-wide acceptance of secular humanism and its relativism.  Rejecting God causes fear and anxiety – a condition searching for hope, consolation and deliverance, especially from suffering and death.  Why, because eventually, satan steps-in to fill the void.  “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24)


Summary


Having no first-hand knowledge regarding the planning, timing, or staging of this event by the pandemic regime, we are left only with observing the results to date, and the chronology of events and circumstances that so quickly led us to where we are today.  Let us briefly return to analyzing what has taken place by further separating and studying the topics which have been so cleverly interwoven.


“Follow the science!” demand the politicians.  Given the limited educational background of most of our “leaders,” and their achievement of lofty offices of dignity through popularity contests and corrupt trade-offs, as they repeat their given science mantra hoping to force the populace into submission, one can only observe their power-seeking antics with silent skepticism, and perhaps, a shade of humor.  Most of these “leaders” are likely the very students who avoided any and all science classes in high school, as if they were the plague.


Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in the western world, the Roman Catholic and Protestant religions have been in conflict with science for past 1,000 years.  To the point of actually torturing the scientists, the clerics of the Roman Catholic and Protestant religions insisted on the earth being flat and at the center of the Universe, and other such nonsense.  Only during the last century, as both religions became morally and spiritually bankrupt, thereby leading their flocks into the cold and lifeless temples of secular humanism, do we see science overtaking religion in the minds of their former flocks.


Ironically, we see the science of these secular humanist leaders following in the footsteps of their former adversaries.  “Believe the established science!” we are told, and believe it only as they tell us.  Does this not remind one of the mighty popes who would proclaimed, “the sun goes around the earth, because we say so!”?  Such lust for power knows no limits, and now we see this self-centered institution conquered by its 1,000 year adversary.  Ironically, the former adversary chooses to sit on the very same throne.  The common thread?  When man is at the center, God is set aside.  As it turns out, both lack that which they demand we believe that they have – wisdom.


The very words, “Believe the established science!” is an oxymoron – a contradiction of terms.  Established and science cannot coexist.  Some years ago, a seasoned physics teacher posted a sign in his classroom.  It read: “All science taught in this room is subject to change without notice.”  He understood that science is the study of God’s creation.  The more we learn, the more we understand how much we do not know, and the more often we might need to change our perspective of what we knew before.  Science is never established.  It is always subject to change.  Those who wish to apply and enforce it as doctrine and dogma only repeat the errors of their predecessors, the religions of the West. They are simply taking turns stepping on the same rake.


So, what is established, even unto the ages of ages?  Certainly, not the heresies of the Latin West, which were created to serve the needs of the Roman institution for the past 1,000 years.  What is established is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, His Church, and His words of promise telling us, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”  (Matthew 5:18)


Not so with the Dr. Faucis, and the other politically appointed masterminds, of our day.  They insist that we “follow the science!”  Well, what is their science?


In December of 2019, the scientists told us that the Corona virus (Covid-19) was nothing to worry about.
Scientists told us this pandemic virus came from a “wet-market” close to Wuhan, China, where there is a world-famous virus research laboratory.  Of course, one was called a racist if one might think to suggest the virus might have come from this laboratory.
(Remember: The pope is infallible, and now science (labs included) makes no mistakes!).  No, we were instructed to believe that this virus came from a rare bat sold for food at a wet-market (a mistake of Nature – God’s creation?).
Politicians were quick to follow the scientists’ narrative, and anyone who might think to call it the Chinese virus was catagorized a racist.
Politicians in the USA encouraged its citizenry to join the Chinese in celebrating their new year in parades and other celebratory events – just to be inclusive under the strained circumstances.


Then, everything changed.


The Wuhan virus was spreading world-wide.  It became a pandemic.  Millions were predicted to die according to computer models used by the scientists.  Scientists and politicians told people to lock-down and isolate for 2 weeks in order to “flatten the curve.”  Travel was prohibited.  All none-essential work and activities were prohibited.  Businesses were closed.  Churches were closed.  The world economy collapsed.  Only essential businesses – food markets, pharmacies, hardware, liquor and marijuana stores were allowed to be open.  Politicians deemed these to be essential.  Millions of people were without work and income.  World-wide, the global economy suffered.


Scientist told the people not to worry, and not to wear masks.  The masks were useless at stopping any virus.  They were unhealthy for breathing for any length of time.  People must “social distance” from each other by at least 6 feet, and wash their hands often.  Believing the science and the government, and overwhelmed by fear, people complied.




Although the curve began to “flatten,” scientists now insisted that more testing must be done to see who might be infected, but not ill.  They said that these people could still harm the population.  Politicians repeated this demand.  State governors mandated that all must wear masks, and “social distance.”   More testing (and more fear)!  Never before in mankind’s history has there been an attempt to test the entire world’s population (healthy people showing no signs of sickness) for a disease.


2 weeks passed.  2 months passed.  6 months passed.  More testing has found more people who are positive (i.e., infected), but without signs of sickness.  Dr. Birx, the former White House coronavirus task force coordinator, another politically appointed scientist, announced that the statistics provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) regarding infections and deaths due to Covid-19 were exaggerated by 25%!  Later, the CDC itself announced that up to 94% of the Covid deaths were falsely reported as being caused by the Covid virus.  This brought the number of deaths ascribed to Covid down from some 400,000 to some 24,000.  Did the scientists, or politicians, or even the media stop to figure the math of such “science?”  Of course not.  They deleted these statements from their own websites, and now deny they ever existed.  (As the statistics show, Covid-19 is no more dangerous, and perhaps even less dangerous, than the annual flu.)  As it turned out, Covid-19 hardly affects people under 20 years of age at all.  The recovery rate for the rest is over 99% successful.  The population most at risk are those 65 years of age or older, and that with pre-existing health problems.  In other words, most people do not die from Covid-19, but from their other existing health problems when complicated by the new virus.


As stated earlier, to help with the projected numbers predicted by the scientists’ computer model, President Trump dispatched a Navy Hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, to New York City.  As it turned out, this floating hospital was hardly used.  Nonetheless, instead of using this ship to serve the elderly with Covid-19, the governor of New York, Andrew Comeau, ordered all nursing homes in New York to accept Covid-19 infected elderly.  He would not listen to the objections of the nursing homes, saying their facilities were inadequate and patients would be harmed.  Because of the Gov. Comeau’s disastrous decision, more than half of New York’s Covid-19 deaths (at least 10,000+ people) were from the elderly dying in New York’s nursing homes.  Although Gov. Comeau has regularly denied requests for an independent investigation into this matter, it is finally being revealed, and even his fellow Democrat Party members are demanding his resignation.  It appears that other states might also have had such lapses in judgement, especially those passing laws granting themselves (politicians, hospitals, nursing homes, etc.) immunity from being sued or held responsible.  Is this how they follow their own science?  Is the government intentionally reducing expenses and support for the elderly by helping them leave health care facilities in coffins?


The Associated Press (August 6, 2020) reported: “Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine tested negative for COVID-19 on Thursday after testing positive earlier in the day.”


The Washington Post (Nov. 13, 2020) quoted Elon Musk, Chief Executive of Tesla, saying: “Something extremely bogus is going on. Was tested for covid four times today. Two tests came back negative, two came back positive. Same machine, same test, same nurse.”  When one follower asked if false tests could be driving the national surge in cases, Musk replied, ‘If it’s happening to me, it’s happening to others.’”


Admitting the Covid tests to be unreliable, and seeing people prove this lack of reliability, why does the Center for Disease Control, along with its obedient media, continue to repeat and publish inflated statistics? (No questions please!  Just record him as positive.  Now, we must continue with the science until we have a vaccine!)


More recently, even though the Center for Disease Control admitted a possible 94% error in the death count from the Covid virus, we are now being told that the recent death count is now some 600,000 deaths attributed to Covid.  Meanwhile, we are told that the death count from the annual flu virus is almost non-existent.  Why?  We are told that the mask mandate stopped the annual flu virus.  So, keep wearing your masks!  See, they must work!  Now this is an interesting contradiction.  The mask virtually stops the flu virus, but still allows 600,000 deaths from the Covid virus.  The argument from the beginning of this pandemic was that a mask was useless against any virus (it being much smaller than bacteria).  Dr. Fauci even said so.  Could it be possible that the death count for the flu was included in the Covid column?  One comparison being circulated is: “A mask is to a virus is what a chain-link fence is to a mosquito.” Where is the science?


There were many such pronouncements of inconsistent and contradictory science throughout the year (2020).  Now, as we approach April (1st quarter) of 2021, we have three vaccines.  Of course, there was not enough time to thoroughly test any of them (3 months as opposed many years?) and the possible side-effects are not yet known, but they have been proclaimed to be entirely safe, and even over 90% effective.  Nonetheless, the Food and Drug Administrations has authorized these vaccines to be only for “Emergency Use.”  What is an “Emergency Use” authorization?  On November 20, 2020, the FDA published the following: “An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”  With such a disclaimer, perhaps the FDA is seeking its own immunization?


What is rarely repeated is that Congress has passed a law protecting the companies and individuals producing these vaccines from any liability whatsoever.  CNBC, Health and Science (12/17-23/2020) provides the following information: 


“If you experience severe side effects after getting a Covidvaccine, lawyers tell CNBC there is basically no one to blame in a U.S. court of law. The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines. ‘It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed,’ said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas labor and employment attorney. Pharmaceutical companies typically aren’t offered much liability protection under the law.’ You also can’t sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment.”


In other words, the FDA tells us that these vaccines are for “emergency use.”  Those providing the vaccine are not responsible for what might happen to a person receiving these vaccines.  Yet, the governments world-wide are demanding that everyone must get vaccinated, or we cannot return to a normal way of life.  The next step on the horizon has already been announced – vaccine passports.  If we wish to travel, or attend public events, or go out in public for shopping, we will need to show our medical papers.  So, you must take this vaccine (even though no one will guarantee its effect on your health), or become a 2nd class citizen who must stay isolated.  You have become a threat to society!
Meanwhile, the requirements for distancing, quarantining, and wearing masks continues to be in effect even for those receiving the vaccination.  So, the question begging to be asked: Is the vaccine really a vaccine, or is it a means to another end?  Recently, Dr. Fauci has outdone himself again.  He said that one mask is no longer enough. He advises the populace to wear two masks – one upon the other.  Apparently, there is no end to the hellish obedience and humiliation imposed upon the hapless subjects.  We have been locked down in house arrest, human rights to travel and assembly have been denied or extremely limited.  Masks and social distancing have been arbitrarily imposed.  Testing for all has been required.  Vaccines for all have been demanded.  Health passports for all have been promised, if you do not wish to lose your rights altogether.  As the demands for obedience grow, none are rescinded – from external behavior to internal make-up.  How long will this humiliation last?  How far can it go?  Until we lose our free will.  Until we give away our freedom for the unspoken promise of some kind of safety.  Yes, the devil is like that.


So, ironically, those producing this vaccine are 100% immune from lawsuits or any form of liability, while those receiving the same vaccine are told to “trust the science,” even though this type of vaccine is different from any previous vaccine in that it uses one’s RNA, and infuses one’s body with foreign substances created from fetal tissues taken from aborted human infants, and other ingredients, which have not been sufficiently tested.  How can this be moral or permissible for a Christian?  Finally, if the producer is not willing to “trust the science” by requiring immunity from liability in order to protect reputation and income, why should the receiver of said product “trust the science” when its resulting side-affects are unknown and there is no guaranteed protection of health?  How can accepting such a substance into one’s body be logical or even the least bit desirable to anyone, unless it is under the conditions of fear?


As this kaleidoscopic circus continues, we continue to witness a growing phenomenon.  Just as the false promise (mandate) of muzzling one’s face with a piece of paper was eagerly embraced, and zealously enforced (along with voluntary house arrest and economic suicide), world-wide, so now again, we see these same people flocking to receive their “vaccine,” hoping to avoid infection, suffering and death, hoping to assuage their fear of mortality, and hoping to return to their “normal life” of moral decay, exponentially much worse than that recorded in Sodom and Gomorrah, but on a global level.  Yet, in allowing this foreign matter into their body, they receive no such guarantee.  They are told that life will never return to the norm they had before.  They have been shown over the past year how there is no end to such submission once one succumbs.  Somehow, one can hear satan laughing with diabolical delight in the background.  Indeed, satan’s thirst and hunger for souls is insatiable.  Which, at this point, gives cause for pause – just to ask: If one does not believe in God, does one still believe that the devil exists?  The devil most certainly believes that God exists.


Without repentance, satan’s conquest of man’s free will is irreversible.  You say these are harsh words?  I say the world-wide subjugation of mankind to the contradictory, man-made rules of science, manipulated by secular humanists is a collection of harsh deeds aimed at an intolerable end.  These secular humanists may not know their master.  Yet, as long as they do his will, he is pleased, and they may continue to think they are in charge.  Let them think it is all the doing of their masterful and talented minds – their superior and domineering intellect attained only by such elite!  Let it be allowed, until such time, of course, that any of them realize and repent of the global tragedy they are preparing.


Here, I will remind the reader of what was written at the beginning of this letter: “let us consider that contrary to the mindset of contemporary secular society, when one speaks of the history of mankind, it must be understood that all of it is inevitably tied to God and the Church.  Throughout history there is a repeating theme – man either seeks God, or man attempts to be God.”


Indeed, whether one be an atheist, socialist, communist, or secular humanist, one’s personal aspirations and goals are just that, personal, and, for the most part, insignificant.  What most do not see is the “bigger picture,” and that is one can only serve “God or mammon.”  Which means that even if one serves mammon in little things, he will continue serving so in big things.  Furthermore, as we witness the steady subjugation of mankind, the steady loss of free will becomes proportional to man’s rejection of God’s Will.


Let us consider the words of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians (6:12): “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”  So, it is not about scientists vs. politicians.  It is not about people vs. people.  “We wrestle not against flesh and blood.”  It is about good vs. evil. It is about God or mammon.


And, just as our Savior promises: “where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20), when such gather as a nation of one heart, mind, and Faith “in His name,” we have the prophesy of scripture fulfilled where our Savior says, “And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 13:29)  “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” (John 10:16)


Inversely, when the love for God waxes cold, and the world succumbs with fear to the growing global rule of atheists and secular humanists, the prophesy of scripture again comes into focus as its meaning gains clarity.  We have clearly passed another point of no return.  We have been promised that what was normal will be no more.  Does it not feel like an airplane beginning its descent after a long flight?  Perhaps the world has begun its final preparation for the coming of the antichrist?


As Christians then, what must we do?  The answer is simple.  Be a good Christian.  As St. John of Kronstadt explains, live a life in Christ.  How can we do this under such circumstances?  Our rulers are in control, and they seek more of it with each mandate.  They are servants of a foreign god, and they do his will, as they seek to deprive us of our God, knowing that only then does mankind fall helplessly under their sword.


Yet, as we know, when two or three are gathered in His name, there He is also.  And, if God is with us, who can be against us?  So, there is little accomplished by waving our fists and throwing our shoes in protest outside their gated mansions.  Indeed, they are the ones causing our anxiety. Yet, here we must realize that fighting anxiety with more anxiety is for a different type of battle.


We must remember how we got here, and why the conditions are such.  Morality is tied to spirituality.  Through its many points of no return, through its steady compromise in morality, society has compromised its spirituality.  It has lost its contact with God.  This prodigal son has strayed so far from his Father, he is not coming home.  Indeed, given the circumstances, it is difficult to see how such a return could happen.  Quite possibly, mankind has passed its point of no return in terms of repentance.  


The purpose of this letter is not only to expose the hypocrisy and lies associated with this most unusual “crisis.”  It is also to provide a perspective on its cause and direction.  The hypocrisy and lies tend to diminish the serious nature of this pandemic.  However, spiritually and morally, mankind has brought this dark cloud upon itself, and it is no small matter.  This is a world-wide affliction.  Unfortunately for mankind, the actual pandemic is not so much viral as it is spiritual.  And, as society descends along this path away from God, many might come to wish this pandemic to have been truly only viral.


This brings back the words of the Apostle Paul with a more focused meaning.  “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”  It also brings to mind the words of our Holy Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret (of ROCOR) when he explained, as we see the prophesy concerning the last times come to pass, we should not waste our time in anxiety, waiting for the next event to unfold.  Rather, we should thank God that we are in the Church and able to discern such things, and continue with our lives as Orthodox Christians.  In other words, we should live our lives in Christ, fulfilling the petition pronounced at most every service, “let us commit ourselves, and one another, and all our lives unto Christ our God.”


“Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © All rights reserved. | Newsphere by AF themes.