[Order David Horowitz’s new book, America Betrayed, HERE.]

The Russian Orthodox-born theologian and philosopher, Vladimir Soloviev, an intimate friend of Fyodor Dostoevsky, stated in his book, “Russia and the Universal Church” that Orthodoxy needed reunion with Rome to whom Christ gave “the keys” if it wanted to become a true universal Church rather than a dead fossil subject to the rulership of heads of state.

Soloviev’s thesis created so much controversy that his works were banned in Russia. He was especially hated by Lenin– until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Soloviev considered himself both Russian Orthodox and Catholic, since both Churches are truly apostolic with valid sacraments. He reiterated the historical fact that there had been no formal declaration of separation between the two Churches. It was only with the Eastern Church of Constantinople that formal documents of separation were drawn up, but with the Russian Church no ‘decree of separation’ was ever declared.

Soloviev’s study of the Church Fathers convinced him that the early Church deferred to the Bishop of Rome, not only as the first among equals, but as the undisputed Vicar of Christ—the only bishop whose word was the final authority in Church matters because of Christ’s injunction in Matthew 16:18-19. 

In 1896, Soloviev made “his submission” to the Roman Church in front of several witnesses. This occurred in Moscow’s Chapel of Our Lady of Lourdes. Sometime later, as he lay dying in the country home of Prince Troubetzkoy, he received the Last Rites from a Russian Orthodox priest because a Catholic priest was not available.

The great man did not retract his writings or his allegiance to Rome because he was visited by an Orthodox priest. Any Catholic has always been permitted to receive Last Rites from an Orthodox priest if no Catholic priest is available.

It was Soloviev’s belief that no matter who was to blame for the schism of 1054, the split led to the rise of Islam and in fact what followed—the fall of the Church of Constantinople —was nothing less than a chastisement from God for helping to create that division. Soloviev went further and prophesied that the salvation of the world will be found in Christianity and in the union of the two Churches.

Soloviev’s writings stress the universal nature of the Catholic Church as opposed to the troubled, broken-into-factions Casearpapism of the various Orthodox Churches who fall in and out of communion with one another—depending on geo-political trends and feuds, or stumble into canonical squabbles that lead to even more fractured relations.

This is not, he argued, what Christ intended when He founded a “universal” Church. Orthodoxy lacks a central authority, the Pope of Rome, and this leads to a multiplicity of authoritative voices all claiming to be the last word on Church matters.  

Soloviev asks:

“In Eastern Christendom for the last thousand years, religion has been identified with personal piety, and prayer has been regarded as the one and only religious activity. The Western Church, without disparaging individual piety at the true germ of all religion, seeks the development of this germ and its blossoming into a social activity organized for the glory of God and the universal good of mankind. The Eastern prays, the Western prays and labors. Which of the two is right?”

And yet if Soloviev were to come back today and witness firsthand the papacy of Pope Francis whom some call ‘not a real pope’ at all, but an antipope out to destroy every vestige of Catholic tradition, and so they refer to him by his birth name, Bergoglio, which sounds like a suspicious character in noir potboiler, chances are he would not recognize the Catholic Church as the Catholic Church.

This is not all Bergoglio’s fault but much of it can be traced to the liturgical abuses stemming from the ambiguous documents of Vatican II.

The Council called for the use of the vernacular in the liturgy but quickly became an iconoclastic wrecking machine that turned everything on its head, from the reconfiguration of high altars into pedestrian Ikea tables; the promotion of priestly vestments that resemble Hilton Hotel bathrobe accruements, and the building of Catholic churches that look like Baptist temples.

Is it any wonder that so many contemporary Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence?

This new Church, as praised and promulgated by Bergoglio, is becoming even “less Catholic” with the South American now declaring an all out war on the Latin Mass.

This new Catholic Church is a liturgical slap in the face for any true Orthodox Christian who only knows reverent unchanged liturgical traditions that make no concessions to modernism in the name of “getting with the culture.”

In many cases, Orthodox Christians come away shell-shocked when they attend Catholic Masses. While the Orthodox have their fair share of problems—geopolitical and canonical civil wars, pop up schisms, a preponderance of priests who don’t go to seminary as well as a tendency for zero social Christian action– the Orthodox are not as active as Catholics when it comes to the issue of abortion, not to mention that your average American Orthodox priest would rather suffer a brain hemorrhage than openly criticize the Biden administration in a sermon.

Soloviev, the philosopher, would no doubt say that this is why the Church of the West needs the Church of the East. Rome needs Orthodoxy to get it back on the right track in terms of worship and tradition because the West has lost its moorings.

This in fact is what so many Catholics have decided to do on their own: trade their Novus Ordo parishes for Byzantine Catholic ones. Many have also gone over to Orthodoxy. Eastern liturgies are standard and tradition-bound.

Italian journalist Andrea Cionci in a recent piece in OnePeter5 wrote how Pope John Paul towards the end of his life, celebrated Mass while seated. Cionci writes that Bergoglio could do the same but he doesn’t; he opts not to celebrate at all. Cionci cites Canon 930-1 which allows an ailing priest to celebrate while sitting.

“…He doesn’t do it either because he really doesn’t want to, a thing that shows that he is not Catholic at all, (something we have already been certain of for some time), or because he has been prevented from doing so by the Vatican, which shows that he is not the legitimate Pope at all, or that at the very least, investigations are underway…

Cionci makes another startling observation:

“The failure to celebrate the Eucharist is not the only evidence that Bergoglio is not the Pope. Perhaps not everyone has perceived that he, ever since his invalid election, he has never knelt down before the holy sacrament, ever.”

Regarding the false papacy of Bergoglio, Cionci writes in OnePeter5 that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid. He is not alone in his accusation.

He cites the combined provisions of Articles 76 and 77 of Universi Dominici Gregis where it is stated “that if the pope’s renunciation is not made in accordance with can. 332.2, in which the renunciation of the munus is required (and this never took place) the election is null and void, without any further declaration needed.”

Benedict, in his resignation speech, only renounced the ministry. He did not specifically renounce the office (or munus).

Cionci believes that in time it will be necessary to switch the focus on the abdication of Benedict XVI.

“….And on the issue of the fraud of the 2013 Conclave, which sooner or later will have to give rise to an official investigation. Should there be evidence of irregularities, the conclave would be null and void, Bergoglio’s election null and void, just as all his appointments, acts of government and magisterium would be null and void…”

Is the tide is turning against Pope Francis?

Recently, 17 prominent Catholics released a “Call for the Resignation of Pope Francis.” In their declaration they claim that “the words and actions of Pope Francis have caused an unprecedented crisis in the Catholic Church.” The statement also includes a long list of Francis’ alleged crimes—against canonical, civil, natural, and divine law— since 2013, as well as various heresies he has championed.

Vladimir Soloviev would certainly be supportive of these measures.