Werewolves, or Who stands behind the Vatican.

A book by Olga Czewarikova “ Оборотни, или Кто за Ватиканом“ reveals the actual aims and plans of the Vatican, which as a ecclesiastical institution and state-political structure has a unique ability to influence both global politics and spiritual awareness of the nations of the world.

The author explores how the presence of a powerful administrative apparatus and an extended network of many organizations, and most importantly, the usage of sophisticated, secret mechanisms of mass manipulation, allows him to actively conduct intelligence operations, manage financial flows and control political processes in close cooperation with the world's ruling circles. The Vatican's eventual goal, however, is to accomplish ideological and spiritual leadership on a global scale, aimed at establishing not Christianity, but anti-Christian, universal, syncretic religion, initiated by the Second Vatican Council. Therefore, the author of the book is at the heart of the process of profound transformation, or alternatively the elimination of Catholicism, which in fresh decades has been successively and gradually carried out by the papal authority itself, preserving only its outer shell behind which is 1 antiquity—global Babylon.

From entry to the book:

“ Russia is now dynamically integrating into the western order of the world, renovating our civilizational values. In order to accomplish this, the consciousness of our citizens is being rebuilt, in which forces that traditionally embody standards and values completely abroad to us and are our main opponents are seen as allies and friends. In the spiritual and ideological spheres, specified reconstruction besides takes place in relation to the Vatican, which plays a key function in these plans.

The Vatican is simply a ecclesiastical-state structure with unique intelligence, diplomatic, financial and organizational capabilities, allowing it to consistently prosecute its objectives under the protection of many spiritual orders, foundations and associations. Speaking of the Vatican, we mean both the governing body of the Roman Catholic Church and the state – the Holy See and the Vatican State – and this is its characteristic. It should be stressed here that the word “Catholic Church” refers not to the Church of Christ, but to an institution that is quasi-Church.

The Holy See, the theocratic monarchy represented by the Pope and the Roman Curia, is an institution having legal personality, meaning that it acts as sovereign being sui generis (unique in itself), recognized under global law and being a permanent observer to the UN. It may contain treaties, establish diplomatic relations, accept ambassadors and send diplomatic missions (apostolate nunciatures). Furthermore, the Holy See has an auxiliary territory – the Vatican State, managed by the Pope through the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican State and a governorate composed of cardinals appointed by the Pope. The position of the state was determined in the Lateran Treaty, concluded between the Holy See and the government of B. Mussolini in 1929. According to this, the Pope is besides the bishop of Rome – the head of the Catholic Church – a secular sovereign as a monarch and sovereign of the Vatican State.

The fundamental thought of Catholicism, which is at the root of the rigid hierarchical structure of the full strategy and which transforms it into a powerful organizational force, is the thought of papal primacy, or primacy of the Bishop of Rome. It is expressed in designation of the pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, the visible head of the universal Church, having full, ultimate and universal authority. This thought began to form in the first half of the first millennium and became established as a doctrine as early as the 9th century.

It grew out of the fact that Roman bishops began to interpret in their own way the primacy of honor, which was recognized for the Roman Capital in accordance with canon 3 of the Second Council and canon 28 of the 4th Council. This primacy was initially understood as “a leadership in love” and granted no authority to the Pope. It was declared due to the importance of Rome as the capital of the empire, thus according to ancient custom, and maintained even after the capital was transferred to Constantinople in 330. However, with changing historical circumstances (final division of the empire, German invasion, collapse and demolition of the political strategy in the West) the position of Roman bishop has besides changed. As he became the only typical of the order and ultimate authority in Rome, this bishop increasingly sought to strengthen the position and function of the Capital of Constantinople. Since the popes could no longer trust on Rome's unique position to justify their primacy, the thesis developed, which inactive forms the basis for papal claims to primacy: Roman bishops are the successors of the apostle Peter, who, as the "prince of the apostles," possessed peculiar powers which they were given.

The doctrine of St. Peter as "the prince of the apostles" and the foundation of the full Church, surpassing the another seniorities of the saints, was first formulated by Pope Leon I the large (440–461) in his sermons.[1] In accordance with this doctrine, all the shepherds of the Church, the apostles and priests, received their authority from Christ, but all the gifts and prerogatives of apostolicity, priesthood and shepherdhood were full and primarily passed on to Peter, and through him and through him to all the another apostles and shepherds. Since Roman bishops are the successors of the apostle Peter, their communion with him, both in the depths and in the fruits, reproduces his communion with Christ. Hence, they have the full authority of Peter, and the Roman capital is the spiritual center of the full Christian world.

Leon I drew the following applicable conclusions from this theory:

1) since the full Church is based on Peter's steadfastness, anyone who deviates from this fortress stands outside the mystical body of Christ--the Church;

2) Anyone who violates the authority of the Roman bishop and refuses to obey the apostolic throne does not want to submit to the apostle Peter.

3) He who rejects the authority and primacy of the apostle Peter, being arrogant in the spirit of pride, throws himself down.

Already at the sessions of the 4th General Council, the papal legates described it this way: “Holy and Holy Pope Leon, head of the universal Church, decorated with the dignity of the apostle Peter, who serves as the foundation of the Church and the stone of faith, etc.”[2] But while the Council fathers viewed these terms simply as an honorary title, successive popes began to interpret them as an expression of their universal power.

Pope Nicholas I (858–867) gave the first clear formulation of the thought of absolute authority of the Pope in the universal Church, as well as the concept of papal theocracy. He was the first to call himself the Vicar of Christ on earth, having the highest jurisdiction over east bishops and standing above councils and synods. In support of this claim, the Pope referred to the celebrated “Donation of Constantine” and the false Decrees of Isidore, written most likely around 850. As the Jesuit of Memburg wrote, Nicholas I elevated his papal authority to levels he had never achieved before, especially with respect to emperors, kings, princes and patriarchs.[3] After that, John VIII (872–882) attempted to strengthen the position of Papacy, playing a decisive function in shaping the thought of a "political community of all Christians as such" with the capital in Rome. He defined the Roman Church as "a ruler over all nations and to which all nations are brought as a joint parent and head."[4]

Thus the Roman capital began to be seen as the center of the Universal Church, and the papal primacy understood as the universal teaching and administrative authority of the Roman bishop, having divine origin. This enabled the popes to unacceptablely change the Creed, known as Filioque.

Although the papal thought distorted the Gospel, the east Church initially reacted indifferently to the fresh applications of Roman bishops. The East had small cognition of what was happening in the Western Church, but since Rome has always proved to be a strict defender and guarantor of the Orthodoxy in the fight against heresies, his authority has become much stronger. In the meantime, Rome skillfully utilized the silence of the East, and all Roman claim, uncritical, became part of the Western ecclesiastical tradition and grew in importance over time. As a result, relations between the 2 parts of Christianity began to take on a character that clearly reflected the imbalance in Rome's favor: its assertiveness and any rationality on the part of the East. As a result, serious polemics with Pope’s claims were considered besides late erstwhile they gained authority over antiquity and profoundly rooted in the consciousness of Western Christianity.

This came to light in 1054, when, after the refusal of the patriarch Michael Cerulary of Constantinople to surrender to Rome, there was an excommunication between the patriarch and the papal legates. However, as early as 1009, after Pope Sergius IV in his inaugural letter laid out the Creed, adding the filioque, Patriarch Sergius II of Constantinople removed the pope's name from the diptychs and no papal name has been placed in them since.

Later, the Pope's authority was reinforced by the dogma of the infallibility of papal teaching, as formulated in the 4th chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (Eternal Shepherd), adopted on the Vatican Council I in 1870 for the pontificate of Pope Pius IX. It reads as follows: “Pope, erstwhile ex cathedra speaks—that is, erstwhile exercising his office as teacher and shepherd of all Christians, by virtue of his ultimate apostolic authority, he decides that a peculiar doctrine in matters of religion and morality is to be accepted by the full Church—has, through the divine care promised to him in the individual of Saint Peter, this infallibility (infallibletas) which the Divine Redeemer intended to bestow upon his Church erstwhile it establishes the doctrine in matters of religion and morality. Consequently, these papal provisions are irrevocably in themselves, not by the consent of the Church.” "If anyone, God forbid, dared to argue our definition, let him be excluded from the community of believers."[5]

However, this thought contains many ambiguities. Although infallibility is involuntary and enters into force only after certain conditions have been fulfilled, the conditions themselves are highly vague, and most papal definitions are someway related to matters of religion or morality; in all encyclical the pope appears as a shepherd. Does that mean that all papal encyclicals are infallible? Significantly, Pius IX himself categorically refused to give clear criteria of infallibility, declaring in 1871, “Some wanted me to further clarify the council definition. I don't want to do this. It is clear enough." As a result, the Pope was given the full right to admit each 1 of his judgments concerning religion and morality as revealed truth, possibly infallible, possibly becoming it at any time.

Where did this come from, and why was it possible? The fact is that Orthodox and Catholics have a different knowing of the infallibility of the Church. Orthodox theology understands the infallibility of the Church as its ability to keep the teaching of Christ unchanged. It excludes the anticipation of dogmatic advancement and comes from the presumption that Christian discipline is always identical in its content, and improvement is possible only to the degree of acknowledgment of fact revealed by God, but not in its nonsubjective content. No fresh revelations were promised to the Church.

Catholicism, however, began to recognise the anticipation of dogmatic development. This concept was formulated in the mid-19th century by an English theologian, Cardinal John Newman (1801–1890), a erstwhile Anglican who converted to Catholicism. Its essence lies in the fact that the contents of religion and Revelation were initially simply residual, in the form of vague allusions in Scripture and Holy Tradition, not yet full understood by the Church itself. Its scope expanded throughout the past of the Church, revealing and formulating in its consciousness. The Apostles understood the Christian religion only in its most basic form, and only in time did the Church gradually admit and formulate fresh truths of religion (!), building dogmatic conclusions on the basis of the supposed, divinely revealed premises. This approach is related to the Catholic knowing of the dogmatic content of Christian religion as a circumstantial set of knowledge, structured into a logically coherent philosophical-theological system, alternatively than as an unchanging and rationally elusive experience of communion with God. It was this concept that became the premise and foundation for the thought of infallibility of the Roman Bishop.

The dogma of infallibility was accepted as the war for the unification of Italy came to an end, precisely in the period erstwhile Garibaldi's troops entered Rome, which became the capital of the Kingdom of Italy. The Pope was deposed, losing his temporal power, but this was compensated by the strengthening of his authority in the Church. Due to the circumstances, the council never addressed the issue of collegiate authority of bishops in unity with the Pope, resulting in the strengthening of the Pope's absolute power. Under this authority the bishops yet lost their independence, becoming de facto his servants, implementing the pope's decisions in doctrinal, pastoral and disciplinary matters.

Documents of Vatican Council II (1962–1965) and subsequent declarations of the Catholic Church confirmed the position of Pope. The dogmatic constitution on the Church (Lumen gentium) confirmed “the teaching of the establishment, continuity, meaning and importance of the sacred primacy of the Roman Bishop and his infallibility of teaching.” Although the paper returned to the subject of collegiality and authority of the "college of bishops," he clearly stated that "a colleague, or body of bishops, exercises authority only together with the Roman Bishop, Peter's successor, as his head, and his primacy over all, both shepherds and faithful, remains intact. By virtue of his office, i.e. as Vicar of Christ and Shepherd of the full Church, the Roman Bishop has a full, ultimate and universal authority in the Church, which he can always exercise freely."[6].

With respect to “other Churches and Church Communities”, although the Council felt that “there are many principles of sanctification and truth” they can receive “the fullness of the means of salvation” only through the Catholic Church: “Those who believe in Christ and have been decently baptized stay in a community with the Catholic Church, and a full community is possible only by recognizing the authority of Peter’s successor, or Pope of Rome.” Thus, the actual “unity of Christians”, according to the teaching of the Holy See, is possible only by recognizing the Pope as the successor of Peter and the head of the Christian Church.

Since the thought of the primacy of the Pope of Rome powerfully contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ and has become the main origin of mistake and deviation in the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodoxy defines Catholicism as heresy. This is simply a definition given by our Holy Fathers, from which the Patric tradition derives.

The celebrated hierarchs, priests, monks and lay Orthodox Church fought against papal errors: St. Gregory Palamas, St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Melecius the Confessor of Galicia, St. Nicodemus of Holy Mountain and many others who claimed that "who in healthy religion defiles even the smallest commandment, defiles everything" and that "whosoever receives heretics accepts the same accusations." On this basis, Patriarch Constantinople Cyril VI (1769–1821), despite the opposition of bishops under the influence of Papacy, issued an encyclical in which he excommunicated from the Church those who regarded the sacraments of Catholics as legitimate. The condemnation of Papacy as heresy is included in the encyclical of the east patriarchs of 1848[7] and in the encyclical of His Holiness.

The Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1895 (for the Patriarch of Antimosa VII) stated that Philioque, the papal primacy and papal infallibility were contrary to the Gospel and Tradition, and Papalism was classified as “herethic weeds” in the Church of God, cut off from the healthy body of the universal Church.

That's what our Holy Fathers of the 19th century wrote.

Saint Ignacy (Brianchaninov) (1867): “Papism is called heresy, which engulfed the West, from which various Protestant teachings developed, like from a tree branch. Papism attributes the attributes of Christ to the pope and thus negates Christ. any Western writers almost simply formulated this renunciation, claiming that Christ's negation is far little sin than the pope's negation. The Pope is simply a Papal god; he is their deity. due to this terrible error, God's grace has left the Papals; they have devoted themselves to themselves and to Satan—the creator and father of all heresies, including papacy. In this state of darkness they distorted certain dogmas and sacraments, depriving the Divine Liturgy of its essential importance, eliminating the call of the Holy Spirit and the blessing of the offered bread and wine, through which they are transfigured into the flesh and blood" of Christ... No heresy so openly and insolently expresses its immoderate pride, cruel contempt for humanity and hatred of it."

Saint Teofan Pustelnik (1894): "The Latin Church has apostolic origin, but has deviated from the apostolic traditions and is corrupted". Its main sin is the desire to make fresh dogmas... The Latins have corrupted and desecrated the Sacred Faith, which has been passed on by the Holy Apostles... "To believe in Latin is apostasy from the Church, heresy."

Almost all Orthodox theologians of the 20th century accepted the patristic discipline of papalism. Saint Justin (Popowicz), known throughout the Orthodox planet (1974), pointing to 3 types of man's fall—the fall of Adam, the fall of Judas, and the fall of the Pope, wrote: "Christ was pushed into heaven, and in his place a "vice king"—the pope was established; God-man was replaced by man and love—by systematic elimination and demolition of everything that does not worship the pope, even through forced conversion to the papal religion and burning "sinners for the glory of the mild and good Lord Jesus." Saint Justin tied the sources of all another deviations in Catholic doctrine to the issue of papal primacy.

“ Roman Catholicism is worse than atheism itself, ” wrote F.M. Dostoevsky. Atheism proclaims nothing but nothingness, but Catholicism goes on: it proclaims perverted Christ, Christ defamed and desecrated by himself, Christ in opposition! The voices of the Antichrist...It’s okay. ” “Roman Catholicism is no longer Christian. Rome proclaimed Christ, who yielded to the devil's 3rd temptation, announcing to the full planet that Christ could not stand on earth without an earthly kingdom; Catholicism thus declared Antichrist and thus destroyed the full Western world. "The Roman Church in its present form cannot exist." She proclaimed it loudly, declaring that her kingdom is of this planet and that her Christ "could not abide in this planet without an earthly kingdom." The Catholic Church exalted the thought of the secular sovereignty of Rome over fact and God; for the same intent it proclaimed the infallibility of its leader... The Catholic Church will never, always surrender this power to anyone, and would alternatively see the complete fall of Christianity than the fall of the secular state of the Church...’.

The main aspirations of Papacy have always been directed towards the Orthodox East. And his mission to Russia remains unchanged: he seeks to change the foundations of the Russian spiritual order, to erode the centuries-old ideological principles shaped by Orthodox religion and, ultimately, to absorb Orthodoxy by Catholicism under the authority of the Roman Pope. This is the goal of all fresh activities of the Holy See, aimed at bringing us closer to Catholicism – a milestone to which the Pope's encounters with Patriarch Moscow were to become, and yet became an crucial milestone.

Meanwhile, Vatican plans are ambitious. After an apostasy with the Second Vatican Council in relation to the fundamental principles of Christian doctrine, he "opened" to active ecumenical communication with representatives of various spiritual and ideological systems while retaining the full papal primacy principle. This allowed him to claim the right to spiritual leadership on a global scale.

However, by making a strong ideological expansion, by providing spiritual and moral justification for the request for “global political power” and seeking the designation of Vatican authority as the leading spiritual force in the modern world, Papacy itself is in fact simply a tool in the hands of more powerful forces, introducing universal planet religion and global ethics for all mankind.

How did Catholicism abandon Christian doctrine, which is behind the papal task of global rule, and what are the Vatican’s actual plans in this regard?

This book explores the question of Orthodoxy. It draws from untapped abroad sources, which allows for a better knowing of the facts already known and a broader position of the ongoing processes.

We rejected the Latins just due to the fact that they're heretics. Therefore, the unification with them is totally wrong." "Latins are not only schismatic, but besides heretics. Our Church kept silent about this due to the fact that their race is much more many and stronger than ours.”
Saint Mark of Ephesus

In the past of humanity, we have 3 major falls: Adam, Judas, the Pope... Papacy, with its morals, is more than an arianism... The dogma of the Pope's infallibility is not only heresy, but panheresis. due to the fact that no heresy has been created so fundamentally and comprehensively against God-man of Christ and His Church, as Papacy with its inevitability of the Pope. There's no uncertainty about that. This dogma is simply a heresy of heresy, an unprecedented rebellion against Jesus Christ.
St. Justin (Popowicz)

Footnotes:

(choice and crowd. PZ)

cdn.