Janissaries, The LGBT Army & The End Of Empire — Guest Post by Ianto Watt

Janissaries, The LGBT Army & The End Of Empire — Guest Post by Ianto Watt

Mentita est iniquita sibi… Iniquity, as always, lies to itself. And then to everyone else.

Eastern Orthodoxy is no exception. Because it is a deception, masquerading as a belief. As I have said before, it is a nationalistic (phyletic) schism from the original Christian confession. It is born of the rejection of the need for ecclesial obedience to anyone beyond their borders. A Samaritan rejection of the authentic universal nature of the Church. Like King Jeroboam, the leaders of Eastern Orthodoxy have confused the authenticity of national equality with the concept of religious nationality. But this confusion has been deliberate. Here’s why.

(First, a note of warning: when we speak of Eastern Orthodoxy today, we must note that there are now two basic versions. One is Russian, the other is Greek. And while the Russian one is continuing it’s 500-year trajectory, the recently-modernizing Greek version is reversing its own millennial past. We’ll deal with that in a bit. For now, let’s deal with both in their original form.)

Like the Samaritans before them, the Eastern Orthodox repudiated their fathers in the faith. They kept their father’s sacrifice, but refused to kneel before his Priests. Jeroboam was sanctioned by God to confront the evil of King Rehoboam in the secular sphere of Jerusalem. But he went beyond God’s call when he set up his nationalistic worship state (Samaria) that mimicked that of the Temple in Jerusalem. For which the Ten Tribes of Israel in his Kingdom were taken away by the Assyrians. This occurred 134 years before the Babylonians punished King Rehoboam and his rump Kingdom of Judah for their secular sins. Ecclesial sins are more grievous than secular ones.

Anyway, the Eastern Orthodox mistakenly believed, like the Samaritans, that true religion meant choosing between sacrifice and obedience. The true choice is never one or the other. Both are necessary to right belief. But the Eastern Orthodox bought into a false dichotomy and decided that obedience was not as important as sacrifice. Obviously, someone hadn’t read their scriptures: Samuel 1:22.

This Eastern schism was rooted in the idea that religious nationalism is the correct version of the Christian faith. It told the people that, like the Samaritans, they did not have to continue to visit Jerusalem (or Rome) to offer their religious sacrifice each year. Their benevolent King (and his newly-minted High Priest) said so.

This same Samaritan schism that tore the Jewish world apart then erupted again in the Christian world almost 2,000 years after King Jeroboam first tried it. It began this time with the ascent of ‘Patriarch’ Photius to the leading eastern ecclesial throne of Constantinople in 860 AD. Illegally elevated to the ecclesial throne by Caesar Bardas, Photius echoed the falsified message of Caesar and his universal Empire. Photius, the false High Priest in service to Caesar, subverted the gospel message in the attempt to control the masses by controlling the Church. For the benefit of the Caesar.

And from the time of Photius, nearly all of the Eastern Patriarchs have continued his work in order to maintain their separate (but secondary) sphere of influence. Influence that would be enforced by Caesar, so long as these renegade religious powers supported the supreme power of Caesar. And both of these venues of interwoven influence, both secular and sacred, can only be maintained by lies. Here is the root of their lies.

The Caesars have always told us that true nationality can only be found in the universality of Empire. All we need to do is put our allegiance to the Empire above any allegiance to our inherited past. Our allegiance to the Empire somehow enhances our inherited (but hyphenated) nationality. This is the way to true peace, Caesar says. I know, this sounds idiotic. But it sells in the heartland. Enlistments are up.

No Empire can be forged without an ascendant nation that first forms and then ‘leads’ the Empire. And no Empire can last without the force of a Caesar. Because almost all Empires have been multi-confessional agglomerations that try to mix oil and water. The concept of Empire implies (even demands) expansion beyond its original bounds, thus continuously absorbing distant foreign cultures. And these cultures usually don’t mix well.

Only a Caesar can override these multi-confessional differences, and he can only do it by forcing us to accept his lie. He allows the continued existence of these multiple confessions, but only if they admit that Caesar is a god too. Those who won’t burn some incense on his behalf must die.

Photius turned Caesar’s Imperial logic inside out in the ecclesial world, saying that ‘true’ Christian universality is only to be found in Christian nationality. Photius said that no nation is truly free to kneel before Christ if there is any ecclesial hierarchy that rises above the individual nation. In other words, there can be no single High Priest. Same thing that Jeroboam said. There must be many High Priests (or Patriarchs), as many as there are nations.

Which means, of course, that there can be no way of correcting any national-religious belief that strays from the core dogma of original religious belief. Interestingly, Photius said all of this while in the pay of Caesar Bardas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardas ‘Hi, I’m Caesar, and I approve this message!’

So, how can these two men, peddling similar yet mirror-opposite messages, be so chummy? How is it that in the West, Caesar and Peter have been eternally opposed, while in the East, the land of Caesars and Patriarchs, they are supposedly blood-brothers? And just coincidentally, Caesar is always the older brother. But the younger one always bleeds. Ask Abel about that.

The heretofore unchanging Western paradigm of opposition between Caesar and Peter appears to be changing, as is obvious to anyone with one eye. There is more agreement now between the hierarchs of the West and the Empire than at any time since the Arian Heresy. Coincidentally (if you believe in such a thing) it is being mirrored by another change in the Eastern Greek Orthodox Churches. These changes are monumental in nature. Both historically, as well as doctrinally. They appear to be opposite, but they aren’t.

No, they are one in nature. They are simply mirror images of the same thing, apostasy. In the West, the doctrine of Papal Primacy (a.k.a. the Universal Church with a single head) is nearly dead, after a hundred years of assault, and fifty years of no effective leadership within the walls of Holy Rome in defense of it.

Yet in the Greek East of today, the Photian (a.k.a. Samaritan) doctrine of National Church leadership is giving way to an Eastern Papacy. A new Papacy, led by the supposedly dead Patriarchate of Constantinople (a.k.a. Sultanville). What could possibly link these two trends? What issue could possibly be causing their seeming convergence in both the ecclesial and secular world?

Here’s a clue for you. Have you ever heard of the Janissaries? The ferocious mercenary troops of the Sultans. Who were they? Simple: Christians. They were your children. Or rather, the kidnapped children of the Christian lands conquered by Islam. Young boys who were taken from their families and taught the art of war. And sodomy. All in the service to the Sultan. Once they had been ‘initiated’ into their new warrior brotherhood, their faith was gone, replaced by a rage that knew no bounds. A rage turned upon the faith of their parents, and all who held to it. And why not? After all, none of those Christians had come to their rescue. No one bothered to die for them. At least, nobody they knew.

Say what you will about this, the facts are clear. These boy/men were the fiercest warriors of Islam. History attests to this. Constantinople fell to them. What an incredible irony. And since the East fell without aid from the West, would there be a price to pay for this in the West?

Is there a parallel here? There is no doubt in my mind that there has been a similar phenomenon at work. We have seen it at work for at least 100 years in the institutions of the West. Young men were violated by those they should have been able to trust. No citations should be necessary here. Everywhere, from the Church to the Boy Scouts, to Public Schools, to almost every organization that has had some care or contact with the young. We have allowed our boys to be kidnapped.

A good number of these boys (and girls too) in the West have become the vanguard of the LGBT army that has revolutionized everything in the West. The result has been a precipitous drop in trust in most institutions of the West. And rightly so. The fall of the East came from without. The cause of the weakness that rendered it weak came from within. The cause was religious nationalism. Embracing it meant that there were no allies outside the walls of Constantinople. At least, none that passed their purity test.

In the West, the assault on the family also came from the outside. Caesar invaded our lives by peddling his Imperial nationalism. A nationalism that expected unconditional support for Caesar, who in return freed us from the religious beliefs of our forefathers. Like the Byzantine Christians, we saw our children kidnapped and we failed to go to the wall to defend them. After all, Caesar and his modern American Patriarchs have said our core Imperial value is equality. An LGBT-friendly army is the logical result. And we continue to enlist. Go figure.

Things are becoming clearer. The medieval East fell to Islam (and sodomy) because the schismatic East could not (would not) call upon their ‘apostate’ Western brethren for help against the Islamic Horde. A maelstrom that led to their own loss of children. When the East finally did cry for help to their Western brethren at the Council of Florence it was already too late. Even then, those who looked West, like St. Isidore of Kiev, were castigated by the ever-schismatic faction led by Bp. Mark of Ephesus. The old saying came to be: better to be ruled by the crown of the Sultan than by the Tiara of the Pope. They got their wish. And lost their children.

The West has now fallen to the inverse of this same phenomenon. Again, parents who would not rather die than see their children kidnapped by sexual ideologues have only themselves to blame. Who kidnapped our children? Or rather, kidnapped us? For it was my generation that was stolen, with a lie. The lie of the Sexual Revolution. Our parents never saw the Horde coming. They thought their children were safe, inside the institutional wall that had stood for a thousand years in the West. But now, we let our children go the same route with our blessing. Just look at Steven Spielberg, blessing his daughter’s desire to become a sex-worker.

Now in the East, the apparent willingness of the recently-approved (but formerly adjudged schismatic) Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) to countenance LGBT validity is an important case in point.

This appearance of radical doctrinal and organizational change in the East, led by Patriarch Bartholomew of Sultanville, is happening everywhere it seems. This will come as no surprise to those who have been watching the East. The tales of sexual deviancy and predation have been endemic in the West for going on two generations (with no backlash of lynchings). But this same behaviour has been equaled, perhaps exceeded in the East. Which is natural, given the past acquiescence to the Sultan and his Janissaries. But you’ll never see it in the MSM because there isn’t a single person in the MSM willing to look for it. It scores no Nielsen points in America.

There you have it. The LGBT army is on the march, both East and West. It is built on the kidnapped children. Openly snatched in the ancient East, covertly so in the West. Until now, when Pete ButtBoy can openly talk on the debate stage of desiring ownership of someone else’s child. ‘I’m looking forward to it’, he says. I believe him.

They are now mobilized, they are everywhere. Except in Moscow. The Russian Orthodox Church remains the only truly-solid nationalistic daughter of old Constantinople. But like her mother before her, Moscow was condemned to be ruled by those who are alien to her original faith. The alien Sultan has ruled the rest of the East since 1453. Moscow has also been ruled by an infidel since 1666. But the infidel in Moscow was from within. He was one of their own. The ‘Most Holy’ Tsar, Alexis I. And then his son, Peter the Great. Here is the short version of how Russia will come to rule us. And everyone else.

It is spelled out in spades in Palmer’s last volume describing the dying-off of the Rurikids, the Viking house of war. These Swedes were freely brought in by the northern Slavic principalities (in the 860’s) to rule over the Slavs, as the Slavs could not rule themselves. They could not even name themselves, and they have been known ever since as the Rus’, the name of their rulers.

The Rurikids converted Russia to Christianity in 988, under Vladimir the Great. This put Russia on the road to salvation. But soon enough, the last of the Rurikids died off, and now Russia would be ruled by another set of aliens. No, not aliens to the land. Rather, aliens to the faith. The faith of their adopted Rurikid fathers. As the Rurikids departed, the Romanovs came. And with them came their iniquity. And their lies.

If we truly know Russian history, an irony first confronts us. The irony is that the supposed protector of the ‘rights’ of the nationalistic Orthodox Church in Russia was the Tsar. Whether it was a late-term Rurikid (like Ivan the Terrible) or a newly arrived Romanov, they all defended the Patriarch’s refusal to kneel to a singular High Priest in Holy Rome, the new Jerusalem. The Tsars would only defend it if the Patriarch remained obedient to the secular throne. Bottom line, the Patriarch would indeed have to kneel before someone besides himself. But he wouldn’t have to admit that anyone was higher in the Church than himself.

This same royal defender of the rebellious ecclesial throne also demanded total obedience from everyone else in his kingdom, including his own son. When he perceived the slightest wavering of this demanded obedience from his son Alexi, he (Peter the Great) would kill his own son. What was this wavering he perceived? Simply this: that his son was giving obedience to the Patriarch. To forestall this treason, Peter would kill off the Patriarchy. And then commit his own dynastic suicide.


The first of the Romanovs, Tsar Michael, was elected by the nobility after the extinction of the Rurikid line shortly after Ivan the Terrible’s last son, Feodor I, died in 1598. It was Feodor I (the last Rurikid) who wrangled (bought) a Russian seat at the Patriarchal Pentarchy round-poker-table, much like Michael Bloomberg has bought his political influence today. Favors must be re-paid, you know. Even if the donor is dead. It helps to have the same name as the dead donor, though.

It was Michael the Romanov who emerged from the ensuing Time of Troubles following the death of the Rurikid dynasty. But Michael was only acceptable to the rest of the nobility because Michael’s father, Feodor Romanov, was a cousin to the now-extinct Rurikid lineage.

Feodor Romanov should have been the new Tsar, but he had already been forcibly tonsured by Godunov the usurper (who reputedly killed the last Rurikid infant in a palace coup). Thus, Feodor Romanov was forever chained to the ecclesial world. His son, Michael, was not. And Michael was therefore made king. Tsar Michael Romanov. Hail T-sar!

The reality is that Russia was then actually ruled by the Patriarch, regardless of Michael’s occupancy of the Rurikid throne. Because when Godunov died, there was also a vacancy in the Patriarchal throne as well. Feodor Romanov, Michael’s father, was made Patriarch. Feodor Romanov, once forced into the monastery, was now known as Patriarch Filaret I. It was actually he who ruled Russia, for many years. Russia was now a diarchy. Two thrones. Patriarch and Tsar. Father and son.

There were two consuls, in the case of Classical Rome. They were co-equal. In Second Rome (Constantinople), there were also two thrones, but the Emperor’s throne was above that of the Patriarch’s. Money saw to that. In Moscow (the putative Third Rome), under Patriarch Filaret, the Church’s throne rose above the Tsar’s. Patriarch Filaret conducted business alone in the name of the State on all great occasions. In effect, he occupied both thrones. But his real power flowed from the ecclesial one, and his son Tsar Michael was his subordinate. As any son should be. Perfectly natural, no? No.

This situation could not be peaceably sustained, as it combined the offices of both Church and State in the person of one man. The nobility did not like this, at all. For it meant that this dualistic leader could play the WWJD card whenever he felt the nobles were trying to exert any authority, of any kind, on their own. Specifically, against the Caesaric personality straddling both thrones. The nobles could never guess which occupant they would encounter as they approached the now-singular throne. Not that they had good intentions, mind you. But they were severely handicapped in their ability to counter either persona. And they knew it.

This situation would have tragic consequences for Russia, for it brought into the open the nobility’s heretofore hidden and growing dislike for the Church. And now they had the perfect excuse to rationalize their dislike when Patriarch Filaret acted with the force of Caesar. Soon enough though, Patriarch Filaret passed away, leaving his son Michael alone on the political throne. Surrounded by a nobility that had grown tired of pretending in their previously professed piety. But things calmed down a bit once there was a new Patriarch who was not related to Tsar Michael.

Tsar Michael then had a son of his own, Tsarevich Alexis, in 1629. And soon enough, there was again a new Patriarch, Patriarch Nikon.

Now Tsar Michael was friendly towards the Church, because, after all, he was raised by his father, the head of that Church. And for much of his youth, Alexis looked upon Patriarch Nikon as another father figure. The two were fast friends in the faith. In fact, once Alexis rose to the political throne, he would often leave Patriarch Nikon in charge of all secular matters when he, the Tsar, had to go on campaign.

Here’s where things went off the rails. Nikon, you see, was a very strong man when it came to belief. Those who did not share his belief saw his strength as sternness, which is not the same. At least, it’s not appreciated the same. So the young Tsar Alexis was soon caught between the desires of the Church and those of his nobles. Ultimately, the nobles turned him away from his respect and love of Nikon.

The result? Tsar Alexis allowed the Patriarch to be deposed by his nobles and bishops for the ‘crime’ of trying to occupy both the ecclesial as well as the secular throne. A ‘crime’ caused by Alexis himself, when he would leave Nikon in charge in his absence. And for the additional ‘crime’ of once musing that he should call upon the throne of Holy Rome for the ultimate judgement of his supposed guilt. Get the rope.

The real effect of Nikon’s dismissal and exile was not that the two thrones were somehow separated again. No, the actual result was that the secular throne had finally subjugated the ecclesial throne. And this, as William Palmer shows, would be devastating to both.

This became clear when Tsar Alexi’s own son, Peter (the Great) went even further in his father Alexi’s disobedience to his spiritual father, Patriarch Nikon. Peter would pollute his nation with Western rebellion and totally destroy the Patriarchy of Moscow. And replace it with a ‘Holy Synod’ of servile bishops, always led by a layman. A military man, of course.

To top it off, Peter would hunt down his own son, the tsarevich Alexis (who had escaped to Vienna for a time), and torture him for the sin of venerating the Church, as his namesake grandfather Alexis I did in his youth. Peter tortured him to death, in 1718. Literally. In the Peter Paul fortress, in front of his own secular and ecclesial princes. Then Peter forced them all to sign his son’s death warrant (after promising him mercy if he would return from Vienna). None of these nobles or bishops objected.

Yes, Peter the Great would destroy his own lineage, in the name of obedience to himself. But his demand for total obedience from everyone, both in Church and State, included the demand that his son Alexi should embrace Peter’s own notorious decadence. Decadence both spiritual and carnal. All of Europe knew the scandal of it. They knew Peter, like all the Rus’, could not rule himself.

Let’s look more closely at this result. The grandfather, Alexis I rejected the supremacy of the National Church. The grandson Alexi II (had he lived) rejected the supremacy of the Imperial State. Both were correct to do so. But not for the reasons they did. Think this logic through with me.

If there are two thrones that are completely contained within one nation, there will always be the threat of conflict between them. If the sole ecclesial throne is actually located outside (and above) the nation, then the local Church is not a nationalistic phenomenon. Every Bishop, in every land, will have a powerful patron (Pope) who can help them resist any secular throne that tries to subjugate it.

We in the West stand at much the same (but inverted) point today that Russia stood in 1666. We have rejected our national birthright, and yet we still hope for the benefits our faithful fathers bequeathed us. We have forsaken our obedience to the national (founding) fathers of our past and, as a result, we now rightly fear the future. We simply want the Imperial present-day to continue in a perpetual Ground Hog Day re-run of our recent glory. But the moon landing was 50 years ago. The images are growing dim, and, like the pictures from Apollo XI, life used to be in black and white. Now we live in 50 shades of evil.

The parallels today are so deep and so many that I cannot relate them to you without a hundred pages that would distill the 4,000+ I have just finished. The facts of the past are clear. The path that we are on is exactly the same. We too are killing our children for resisting our own sins. Sins for which we should die. And we will die, of course, as all men do. But we are killing our children first. Before we die, we are seeing the extinction of our line. It is suicide, writ large.

What the Hell does this have to do with us in the West? Everything, my friend. Everything. For just as Israel and then Second Rome were subjugated by aliens to their faith, so too will we be mastered and stripped of our position of primacy in the secular world. Our Empire is falling. The only questions before us are these: when will it happen, and how will we take this subjection when it comes?

Just as Judah was taken by Babylon in 586 BC, and Constantinople was subjugated by the Sultan in 1453, so too will we be stripped of our glory. It is inevitable, even if you only believe in secular wisdom. No Empire lasts forever. Sooner or later, hubris takes its toll. Someone always supplants those proud ones who cannot imagine such an unthinkable thing. Which simply proves that pride removes the ability to think. History has proven this truth. No amount of denials can prevent this fate. Donald may forestall it. But he alone can’t prevent it. He can’t run forever. Even the tears of Hezekiah bought only a few more years.

When it happens, snowflake, when our Empire falls to Vlad or his successor, there will be consequences. Here is a short preview of what will happen. Intellectuals will be shot. Media mouths will be gagged. Abortions will be restricted (if not stopped). Gay rights will become wrongs. Endless wars will end. Work will become precious. Luxury will end. And respect for true (but nationalistic) worship will return. Have I not just described Russia today?

If you don’t think this agenda sells, well, sorry, it’s the only offer. Take it or leave it. Truth be told, it is the only effective secular answer to the insanity of today’s secular West. Only the strong hand of Caesar can stop it. The hand that was missing in 1917. We have seen what that brought. You can read all of this in Solzhenitsyn’s Red Wheel if you don’t believe me. He too knew that history is cyclical. Hence the title. Volume IV has just been published. Read it if you have the guts. Read how the seemingly Christian society of the Tsars devolved into the chaos that gave us Act II of the French Revolution. If you don’t want to bother with that, you can catch Act III when it comes to a theatre near you. It is coming, Komrade. Soon. Unless the Policeman of Europe saves us from our narcissistic ourselves.

Unless we take the offer. The offer we can’t refuse. The offer we can’t accept, either. So, what are we to do? If we can’t believe Caesar, if we can’t trust our Bishops, East or West, if we fear Vlad, and China is ten times worse, what are we to do? Well, maybe we should do what everyone does at last, which they should have done at first. It’s not a coincidence that Sunday is the first (and not last) day of the week. But we never think of it in that way, do we?

I’m saying we should pray about it? Sure. Always good advice. But you also need to THINK about it, and the box we have found ourselves in. Whose walls keep closing in. Think about it? Yes. Think hard. Think back to what we were already told, a hundred years ago. When we were warned all of this would happen.

Yes, it’s way past time to listen to the Beautiful Lady who appeared at Fatima. The lady who prophesied that Russia would spread her errors throughout the world. I’ve told you before what these errors are. The two biggest errors possible for man. No, it’s not communism. Communism is here, not in Moscow. Ask Bernie about that. Besides, the Beautiful Lady spoke in the plural. If Communism is one (which it wasn’t), what was the other? I know, that’s not a fair question. Not if we continue to ‘think’ the way we have.

No, we have to think big. After all, why would she bother to appear (to 70,000 naysayers) for something so mundane as Communism? No, we must think bigger. As big as we can. That’s her whole point. These would have to be the two greatest errors possible to man.

The two greatest errors are these:

First, that one man can be both Caesar and Pope. To own every body (Caesar) and own every soul (the Pope). To be both Romulus and Remus. Who can make this claim to occupy both thrones, secular and sacred? It’s been tried in the past, several times, but each attempt failed. But mark my words, someone will do it again. Soon. In Russia.

Why in Russia? Because of their second great error—the error of the Russian belief of Cosmism. The belief in the coming resurrection (and salvation) of all men, here in time, before the end of time. This salvation (and physical resurrection) will come through the Russian nation. Never forget what the word Slav means, to a Slav. It means two things: The Word, and Glory. The Word of Glory.

Whether secular or sacred, almost all Russians of note, from Monk Nestor to Dostoyevsky to Fedorov to Berdyaev to Solovyev to Tolstoy to Lenin to Putin, all believe in some fashion, that salvation will come from the Slavs. Forget the Jews. Forget the divinely ordered lineage of Jesus (and His mother). Forget them both. Why? Because salvation will come from the Slavs. In time, and specifically, through Russia.

As the Beautiful Lady has foretold us, Russia will then spread these two errors throughout the world. The cost, both temporal and eternal, will be unbearable.

How hard will it be to make this sale to the world at large in this age of American Hubris? This age of American Exceptionalism, wherein we have made this same claim to being the salvation of Man, ever since Woodrow Wilson and his insanity known as WWI? How many nations desire to throw off the American yoke, when it is obvious we have embraced all the degeneracy any Empire can muster?

What is the lesson here, my friend? Simply this. If we give our allegiance to Caesar, we become his slave, now and forever. But if we think that we can rightly give it to God through the office of a nationalist church (which is always subjected to Caesar), we have made the same choice, and once again we are enslaved for life, both temporal and eternal. Yes, I know. Caesar can bring peace, but at a very high price. The current market price will be the loss of the Western Empire, and all its decadent dissolution.

Ultimately, there are always consequences to our choices. When we make the ultimate choice of who shall receive our obedience (and not just our sacrifice), the results are final. There is no turning back. If we refuse to kneel to the faith of our Biblical Fathers (and their High Priest who represents them), we will have to kneel to someone else. Someone who will never allow us to rise again, on the Last Day. Someone who will take away our children and turn them against us, and our God.

Sultan, Tsar or Patriarch, it’s all the same. And it’s all coming to us soon, as a false dichotomy. Any of these false choices may ‘save’ us from near-term martyrdom. None will save us from the Eternal Gulag.

Why has all of this come upon us, Citizen? It’s because, like the Slavs, we would not rule ourselves. More importantly, from the Imperial perspective, we would not rule ONLY ourselves. We wouldn’t mind our own business. And when we were warned of it, we would not listen.

My fear is this, that the Beautiful Lady perceives that there is hope yet for Russia. That is why she has called us to pray for them. But she never mentioned us. What does this tell us? Maybe we are deplorable?

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Oremus.


  1. Nate

    Dostoevsky plays this game far better, Mr. Watt. And he focuses, rightly, on Rome as Caesar, not the eastern traditions.

    “We corrected your great deed and founded it upon miracle, mystery and authority. And people were glad that they had once been brought together into a flock and that at last from their hearts had been removed such a terrible gift, which had brought them so much torment. Were we right, to teach and act thus, would you say? Did we not love mankind, when we so humbly admitted his helplessness, lightening his burden with love and allowing his feeble nature even sin, but with our permission? Why have you come to get in our way now?”

    “We took from him Rome and the sword of Cæsar, and proclaimed ourselves sole rulers of the earth, though hitherto we have not been able to complete our work. But whose fault is that? Oh, the work is only beginning, but it has begun. It has long to await completion and the earth has yet much to suffer, but we shall triumph and shall be Cæsars, and then we shall plan the universal happiness of man.”

  2. Gary

    Jesus is Priest and King. Superior to the interlopers, Pope and Caesar.

  3. Mark Millward

    Gary: “Jesus is Priest and King. Superior to the interlopers, Pope and Caesar”. Yes, Gary that’s true in eternity, but the governing of His people in unity with Him during our sojourn in this earthly vale of tears was given to Peter and his successors, not to every Tom, Caesar and Pope of a Protestant governing (and failing mightily) himself, by his own lights.

  4. Mark Millward

    There is a hierarchy of spiritual government of which I have personal experience of the first (presently) and third (formerly) I accept Mr Watts’ assessment of the second:

    1. Catholic = Universal
    2. Orthodox = National, with universal pretensions
    3. Protestant = every man for himself

    The One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church is presently ruled by an apostate, heretic Antipope. That is not a personal judgement but based on strict reading of Canon Law. Benedict XVI still reigns! As of this week, two Bishops agree – we’re making rapid progress for the RCC!

  5. Gary


    1 Timothy 2:5 – For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

    Let’s not argue about secondaries. I rest on plain scripture.

  6. JTLiuzza

    “I rest on plain scripture.”

    No you don’t. Like all protestants you proof text scripture to justify the decisions of the real, ultimate arbiter of what is and what isn’t: you. It’s easier that way. You never ever have to strain yourself in thought and prayer to understand an instruction or a teaching from God and then change the way you think and live to conform to it. It means what you want it to mean, therefore it means nothing. You don’t rest on scripture. You abuse it.

    I would point out to you what that scripture you cited actually means but I got tired of doing that with protestants. “Why don’t they do this for themselves?” I thought. It’s easily available if you look (at the right source). It’s because you don’t want to know because it’s too hard. So I stopped bothering.

    My prayer for you and all protestants is what I do now. Which ironically puts me in the position of being a mediator between God and mankind.

  7. Nate

    JTLiuzza, You end up resting on the authority (“actually means”) of selected texts as well, your texts are specific to the certain church fathers that you have decided to agree with, based on your acceptance of the agreement of a selected group of bishops (in communion with the see of Rome only).

  8. Mark Millward

    JT Liuzza. Well said! I’m glad I didn’t pile-on to Gary’s response – you did it so much better than I would have done. I fear you’re correct though, it’s very dispiriting to get the predictable response from Protestants. What they fail to see (and I see Nate is there as well) is that we Catholics submit to something greater than ourselves and must wrestle to understand the implications for how we live. Protestants (as I was) simply make their own interpretations and (often) don’t do the hard work and thereby dodge the explicit teaching of Our Lord. Their admission of divorce and remarriage, attitude to abortion, homosexuality etc is illustrative of this point. Tragically, the protestantisation of the Catholic Church since Vatican 2, brought into clear focus by Antipope Bergoglio is a scandal and tragedy, but it’s helping to sort wheat from chaff. Thanks again!

  9. Nate

    You are making a difference that doesn’t exist. You are choosing to submit to a group of authority figures who *you*, personally, have decided have the correct doctrine. The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Armenian Apostolic Church are not Protestants, yet you would likely say the same about them as they refuse to acknowledge *your* chosen hierarchy. Apostolic succession is not and was never understood to be about the primacy of the bishop of Rome, until Rome decided that it wanted temporal power. The notion of a single ‘vicar of Christ’ on the earth flies in the face of the teachings of the early church fathers and the *traditions* of the early church.

  10. info

    @Mark Millward

    “What they fail to see (and I see Nate is there as well) is that we Catholics submit to something greater than ourselves and must wrestle to understand the implications for how we live. Protestants (as I was) simply make their own interpretations and (often) don’t do the hard work and thereby dodge the explicit teaching of Our Lord. ”

    Absolutely false. Do you think the Interlinear bible is a coincidence or the pains that protestants take to ensure the accuracy of translation as well as the most reliable manuscript the Textus Receptus. Especially those who submit to Jesus Christ.

    Our attempts at exegesis and our reliance on the holy spirit to lead us to all truth(John 16:13) is anything but making our own interpretations and dodging the explicit teaching of our LORD.

    Who we trust preserved his word as promised by Christ who said his words will never pass away.

    Sure there are those that fit your description but you miss those who genuinely obey the LORD.

    You miss the loyal and conflate them with rebels.

  11. Mark Millward

    Well Info, relying on the content of your own comment, my own was not “absolutely false”, but perhaps partially true. Don’t you admit that my description does fits some Protestants? Admittedly it also fits plenty who go by the moniker “Catholic”, but I believe the facts are that this has come about because of protestantization of mainstream Vatican 2 “Catholicism“.

  12. info

    @Mark Millward
    “Well Info, relying on the content of your own comment, my own was not “absolutely false”, but perhaps partially true. Don’t you admit that my description does fits some Protestants?”

    Of course. What I absolutely object to is lumping them all in together. The Confessional Churches together with the cringey Prosperity Gospel scammers. Meanwhile outside enemies pounce on us because of this.

    “Admittedly it also fits plenty who go by the moniker “Catholic”, but I believe the facts are that this has come about because of protestantization of mainstream Vatican 2 “Catholicism“.”

    Same issue of lumping us all together. There are those that love the old hymns and the Eastern Orthodox Chants. There is even a move away from the Hillsong Heretical Churches that represents the “Protestants” you so detest. We detest them too.

Leave a Reply

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