by Ianto Watt
On the other hand, check out these names and tell me if there were any other claimants to their victories; Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and George Patton. And speaking of Charlemagne and Alexander, look what happened when they died- their empires were divided amongst their sons or generals, and things fell apart pretty quickly. Now don’t get me wrong, having a single leader is no guarantee of success, but the lack of it will guarantee failure, unless God intervenes, which He sometimes does. But He doesn’t publish a schedule of upcoming interventions.
So to me, it’s a simple matter of math, as always. It’s either a unified, coherent singular organization, or it’s not. And since we’re dealing with the touchy matters of dogma over 2,000 years, it’s going to be very important for the Church to have a singular head that can rule on matters of such importance. And the fact that the Roman Church has lasted in a universal (versus regional or national) form for 2,000 years says something. That’s big. Now we’ll look at the formal reasons for this schismatic break in the original Church in a bit, but first, let’s define something. It’s called Caesaro-Papism.
As in, ‘Caesar is the Pope’. Henry VIII wasn’t really original in his claim that he, as king, was the head of the Church of England. No, the seeds of that version of Christianity were planted when the pagan Imperial Roman Empire was divided in two by Emperor Diocletian in 286 AD, with a ‘Caesar’ for each half, east and west. There was only one ‘Augustus’ (a super-caesar known as The Emperor) however. Later, Emperor Constantine moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople (known then as Byzantium), as the west began to experience ‘growing pains’ similar to Arizona today. That’s because my ancestors, the Barbarians, had this nasty habit of raiding the empire. A large number of them actually thought it would be swell to live inside the empire (legally) where they had running water and raised crops on a regular basis. That’s our branch of the family, grandson. That’s where the ‘auxiliary’ Roman Legions came from. These Barbarian forces were the only real men capable of fighting their cousins who wanted to continue to free-lance (literally) on the frontier.
Anyway, the capital of the Empire was moved because there were fewer nasty people in the east at that time. Why? Because most of the nasty folks were all on a shoplifting holiday in the West, but the trade routes to the world were centered in the East. Trade routes meant the opportunity to impose taxes, and the Emperors weren’t stupid. They went where the money was. This left the Pope and the people of Rome to fend for themselves when the regular Legions moved east. That’s when Attila came to visit Rome on holiday. But we’ve already covered that.
Anyway, when the Emperor (the ‘Augustus’) moved east, so did the political power. And since the Emperor and the Pope were now physically separated, it was simply a matter of time before the Emperors (even though they were now supposedly members of Holy Rome) began to attempt to sway the decisions of the local bishops and Patriarchs of the East. A Patriarch, by the way, is the head of a national division of the Eastern (or ‘Orthodox’) Church, roughly equivalent to a Cardinal in the West. There was a Patriarch over each of the five parts of the Pentarchy (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople, and the fifth was Rome, which claimed to be the head of all).
Over time, the Emperors in the East began to assume the power to appoint the successors to these ecclesial seats of church authority (called ‘sees’). And while these appointments were in theory subject to the approval of the Pope back in Rome, the great distance between Rome and Constantinople meant that the Pope was often confronted with a choice of a man that he had no real information on. But you can be sure that the Emperor knew the man was he was ‘nominating’. He was the Emperor’s best friend, and for a reason. He was a ‘Yes’ man, more often than not. This doesn’t mean that the man was evil, or un-pious, or even that the particular Emperor was either. It just meant that, human nature being what it was (and still is), there was going to be a conflict of interest somewhere down the road. Some of the ‘King’s Men’ of the Church did the right thing, others did not. Just like today. Like I said, nothing has changed for 2,000 years.
It’s not at all surprising that these eastern churchmen, separated by great distances from the seat of the Church in Rome and having been appointed by the Emperor months or years before Rome was notified, began to make their own decisions. Or at least to accept the decisions forced upon them by the Emperor. And these decisions weren’t really in the best spiritual interest of the Church because, of course, that wasn’t the business the Emperor was in. He was in the power business, like all good Emperors. And if the Church got in the way, well, guess who won? At least locally, as the local bishops and even the Patriarchs of the east all began to give way to the pressure of power politics. And thus we have the beginnings of Caesaro-Papism.
It should also be said that the original pagan Caesars, in the West, before Constantine, also tried to tamper with the Church. But their aim was to exterminate it, not to rule it. Christianity was an alien religion to them. The refusal of Christians to offer incense to the Roman gods (Caesar included) was seen by the Imperial Romans as an act of subversion if not outright defiance of the state. Therefore, they were subjected to the prosecutions that grew into persecutions which led to the martyrdom of many of the early believers. It was not until Christianity was legalized in 313 AD by Constantine that they could begin to emerge from the catacombs, their literal ‘underground’ churches. But Constantine moved to the eastern capital of the Empire in 330 AD, and with him went the legal protections of the state that he had decreed in 313. In fact, numerous other persecutions would break out under subsequent Caesars in the West. Very little of this occurred in the East, compared to the West, as far as I have read. Why? Because folks in the East did what the Emperor wanted. No problem, your highness!
And so Caesaro-Papism was a phenomena of the East, where the Emperors tried to bring the ‘Pentarchy’ of the Church under their political sway and eventual domination. Four of these great cities eventually fell under the overwhelming political sway of the Emperor. But the fifth patriarchate, Rome, was beyond their reach due to the distance and the political chaos that began to engulf the West after the capital of the Empire was moved in 330 AD. And ultimately, a new member was introduced to the modern concept of the ancient Pentarchy, to fill the void left by the refusal of Rome to buckle under to the Emperor. This happened much later however, but it is still of vital importance to our story, because this newest member was Moscow. And when Constantinople fell to the Mohammedans in 1453, the Patriarch of Moscow proclaimed his city to be the ‘Third Rome’.
Eventually, Moscow and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) would become the largest of all the Orthodox Churches. It was the only one of any significant size not to fall under the direct sway of the Mohammedans, although it was often under attack by them. The rest of the Orthodox world has been reduced to looking to Moscow for leadership in two ways- in resisting the Mohammedans, and resisting the West. This resistance to the West was initially expressed in its resistance to the leadership of the Pope, but then it grew to include the political might of the western nations who were often under the influence of the Popes, to a greater or lesser degree.
The culmination of this resistance came in 1914 with the Orthodox Czar of Russia supporting the Orthodox Serbs of Sarajevo in the Balkans against the Holy Roman Emperor of Austria when the Emperor’s nephew was assassinated. This set off WWI as the western (Austro-Hungarian) Empire declared war on Serbia. The Czar, seeking to be the leader of all Slavic peoples (including those within the Austro-Hungarian Empire), immediately took the side of Serbia, thus guaranteeing the destruction of both empires, Russian and Austro-Hungarian, in the bloodbath that followed.
This Russian religious resistance to the West, and specifically to the Western Church in Rome, will be a key element in the conclusion of this book. It is not an understatement to say that this claim to be ‘The Third Rome’ is actually a claim to be the New T
roy. But don’t let this presumption fool you, just as it has fooled the gullible Russians. For indeed they will be present at the end when the New Troy falls again, but they will not be the ones inside the city. At least, not legally.
But now let’s look at the real reasons why Orthodoxy went into schism (formal separation from Rome) and whose leaders even now border on the heretical, along with their Protestant imitators. And let’s start with the man who thought it all up, Photius of Constantinople. Here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about him;
“Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West, was b. at Constantinople c. 815 (Hergenröther says “not much earlier than 827”, “Photius”, I, 316; others, about 810); d. probably 6 Feb., 897. His father was a spatharios (lifeguard) named Sergius. Symeon Magister (“De Mich. et Theod.”, Bonn ed., 1838, xxix, 668) says that his mother was an escaped nun and that he was illegitimate. He further relates that a holy bishop, Michael of Synnada, before his birth foretold that he would become patriarch, but would work so much evil that it would be better that he should not be born. His father then wanted to kill him and his mother, but the bishop said: “You cannot hinder what God has ordained. Take care for yourself.” His mother also dreamed that she would give birth to a demon. When he was born the abbot of the Maximine monastery baptized him and gave him the name Photius (Enlightened), saying: “Perhaps the anger of God will be turned from him” (Symeon Magister, ibid., cf. Hergenröther, “Photius”, I, 318-19).” 16 (end of citation)
Now all of this is quite interesting, but there’s another little tidbit of data that bears looking at, and I first found it in Arthur Koestler’s book, The Thirteenth Tribe. This book relates his research and subsequent belief that the bulk of the Chosen Ones today are Ashkenazis. In other words, that they are not bloodline descendants of Abraham (or his ancestor Shem, oldest son of Noah, for whom the Semites are named). Anyway, Koestler relates the story (repeated by many other Jewish scholars including Shlomo Sand, Paul Wexler, etc.) of the Khazars, the people who lived between the Black Sea (to the west), the Caspian Sea (to the east) and the Caucasus mountains to the south. Which is to say, southern Russia.
They were, according to their own history, the descendants of Japheth, Noah’s second son. And they were fierce. They fought everyone who came near them. But very few nations can fight two wars at once on opposite fronts and survive. Yet the wily Khazars figured out how to avoid this problem, at least for a while. The story of how they did it is not only a great tale, it has an incredibly huge meaning for those who seek to understand the world we live in, and how we came to be in the situation we find ourselves today.
Let’s begin by noting who these people were, occupationally. They occupied the key crossroads of the east-west trade routes of the ancient world. And being intelligent fellows, they decided to set up a toll-booth on the information highway of that day. A little fee equal to 10% of the caravan’s value would ensure its safe passage through Khazaria. Anything less would ensure its destruction. Pretty simple deal. The Khazars grew pretty fat on the operation of this arrangement, and their physical aggressiveness made them formidable opponents. So formidable, in fact, that they were courted by all the other powerful entities of their day from 600 AD on.
In fact, they initially threw their lot in with Imperial Rome, whose capital was now in Constantinople (Byzantium), at the other end of the Black Sea. The Khazars were instrumental in Imperial Rome’s defeat of the Parthians to the south of Khazaria. The Khazars protected the eastern and northeastern flanks of the Roman Empire. For a price, of course. And in the manner of the day, there was inter-marriage between the royal courts in their two lands. The prime (but not only) example of this was the marriage of Theodora, the princess daughter of the ‘Kagan’ (the man worshipped as a god by the Khazars) to Justinian II, the Emperor of the Second Rome known as Constantinople. There was much interchange between these two lands, and both received much benefit from the arrangement.
As time passed, so did the political realities of the day. The new reality was the arrival of the Muslims, led by Mohammed himself. They swept away everything in their path, up to the borders of the eastern Roman Empire. They tried to attack Khazaria as well, but they were hampered by the barrier of the Caucasus Mountains. But the Mohammedans were relentless, and refused to be denied. They kept up their pressure on both the Empire and the Kingdom of Khazaria. They made their usual demand; convert or die. This wasn’t what the Khazars had in mind, however. Nor did the Emperor feel like being demoted. He in turn pressured the pagan Khazars to become Holy Romans, to present a united front towards the Mohammedan threat.
Now the Khazars had a real problem. If they chose Holy Rome as their religion, they became the religious opponents of the Mohammedans, who truly hated the Holy Rome as well as Imperial Rome. If the Khazars became Muslims, the Imperial Romans (their former allies by marriage) would become their enemies. What to do? Well, the solution, as related by Koestler and others, was brilliant.
The Bek was the name of the position of the military general who actually ran the kingdom of Khazaria. It was a dual-governance system, because the ‘god-man’ known as the Kagan was never seen by anyone outside the royal court. And when this problem with Mohammed arose, the Bek called for a parley. You know, a meeting. Like, in the parlor? Parlez vous? Get it? Never mind. He called for a meeting between the Khazars, the eastern Holy Romans and the Mohammedans. Oh, and by the way, he also asked a Jewish Rabbi to attend. And here’s where the direction of history took a huge U-turn. And why not? Who’d want history to be predictable? If it was, we wouldn’t be doing this little exercise, right?
Anyway, the Bek calls the parley into session. The time is about 750 AD. He asks the Holy Roman Bishop if he recognizes the divine authenticity of the other two parties (the Muslims and the Jews). The Bishop responds ‘yes’, that both of them are ‘people of the Book’. That is, they are both descendants of Abraham, the father of many nations, as The Book (the Bible) puts it. And as such, they are immune from destruction (aggressive war) at the hands of Catholics.
Now the Bek turns to the Muslim Imam (Holy Man) and puts the same question to him (but this time it’s about Christians and Jews). And of course, the Imam gives the same answer as the Bishop did, to wit; yes, they are both people of the Book. Same answer, same immunity!
Then the Bek turns to the Rabbi and asks the same question (but about Christians and Muslims). And the Rabbi coolly says ‘no’. No legitimacy, no authenticity, no immunity!
Now you tell me, what would you do if you were the Bek, leader of the opportunistic Khazars? Right! We’re all gonna become Jews! How brilliantly simple! And how brilliantly Machiavellian. Because this decision not only eliminated the danger of offensive annihilation from both Catholic and Muslim armies, it also totally dovetailed with their present pagan practice of rapacity using a non-Biblical (but very Talmudic) form of Judaism that was perfectly consonant with the Khazar’s predatory ways! Incredible. As a Barbarian, I must give my respect.
What, you don’t like this? Don’t blame me. Blame all those Jewish writers and historians who uncovered all this in historic records of the diplomatic exchanges between the Kagan’s Court and the Roman Emperor at Constantinople. And all those Muslim accounts of the same event. Read up on Ibn Al-Masudi. And the account of the Jewish chief minister in the Caliph’s Court in Cordoba (Spain), Hasdai Ibn Shaprut. Read his letters (known as the ‘Khazar Correspondence’) to the Kagan’s court in 954 AD that tell the story as well. And more. It’s the greatest turning of the tables you’ll ever read. Totally brilliant. And totally opportunistic. But isn’t that what Talmudic Judaism is?
An icon of Photius, taken from Wikipedia
But what’s all this got to do with Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the head Patriarch of the Church in the Eastern Empire of Rome? Everything. And I’ll explain how in a minute, but consider this first. In Emperor Constantine VII’s work ‘De Ceremoniis’ he describes a
n elite guard of Khazar warriors stationed at the gates of his palace. This wasn’t some minor detail. He kept them as his personal Praetorian Guard, loyal only to him. Obviously, the presence of Khazars wasn’t an oddity in his court or his empire. Just as today their descendants, the Chechens (aka Circassians) comprise the personal guard of the King of Jordan. In fact, both then and now, they were considered vital in many respects. And wouldn’t an Emperor who was paranoid (and what Emperor isn’t?) and fearful of his own people want someone whose only loyalty was to himself (or his money, more likely) as his right hand man? And now read what Koestler relates in The Thirteenth Tribe (pp 81-82);
“At about the same time when Druthmar wrote down what he knew from hearsay about the Jewish Khazars, a famed Christian missionary, sent by the Byzantine Emperor, attempted to convert them (the Khazars) to Christianity. He was no less a figure than St. Cyrill. ‘Apostle of the Slavs’, alleged designer of the Cyrillic alphabet. He and his elder brother St. Methodius, were entrusted with this and other proselytizing missions by the Emperor Michael III on the advice of the Patriarch Photius (himself apparently of Khazar descent, for it is reported that the Emperor once called him in anger ‘Khazar face’)”17 (end citation, emphasis mine.)
So, was Photius a Khazar? Maybe. And if a Khazar, then possibly a Judaizing one? Certainly, that’s the only brand there was at that time. Let’s look at what he did to the Church before we decide. And before we do, let’s remember that Photius had been made Patriarch of Constantinople by this same Emperor and not the Pope. Remember too that the position of Patriarch of Constantinople carried the most political weight, next to the Emperor himself, in the whole Empire. And if the Patriarch was shifty, maybe even more.