Ecumenism between Western and Eastern Churches is promoted

Deutsch

The division between the Western and Eastern churches, which has persisted to the point of extreme harshness and rigidity, should be ended. The differences must be resolved and a common Easter date finally addressed. With the desired ecumenism, historical events must be reevaluated somewhat, or even completely excluded. The Orthodox Church is already numbed by the wine of Babylon.

West and East should come together again

The Roman Catholic Church seeks unity with the so-called Eastern Churches. The separation in 1054 between the Catholic Church in Rome and the churches in the Byzantine region went down in history as the “Eastern Schism.” Since then, a distinction has been made between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The separation of the Church is rooted in the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael I Cerularius, by the Roman Bishop Leo IX. This was a consequence of Leo’s megalomania, who, from 1049 onward, claimed primacy over the entire Church.

The Roman bishop invoked a kind of customary law, for Rome was, after all, the capital of the entire Roman Empire. But in the first half of the 4th century, Constantine had already moved his headquarters eastward to Constantinople, present-day Istanbul in Turkey. The idea was that where the emperor was, the church’s main administration would also be located. In addition, there were differences over various points of doctrine. This particularly concerned the nature of the Holy Spirit. The rift between Constantinople and Rome seemed inevitable.

Opportunity makes looters

With “customary mercy, charity, gentleness, and Christianity in general,” Pope Innocent III (1198 to 1216) ordered the launch of the Fourth Crusade just a few years after ordering the Third Crusade. The goal, according to the official statement, was to liberate Jerusalem and the Levant from Muslim hands. However, it seems that they somehow lost their way and found themselves in Egypt, ready to conquer the country. The plan to cut off the Muslim occupiers from their source of power, however, went completely awry.

Shooting yourself in the foot

It seems, however, that they didn’t want to have set out for a distant land completely in vain, and so knights from France and Venetian sailors, in particular, came up with the idea of ​​living out their crusading romance in Constantinople. In mid-1203, they besieged the city, finally taking it in 1204 and completely plundering it. The spoils were divided among themselves. This temporary gratification of their greed, however, had lasting consequences. Byzantium had been weakened ever since. This was particularly true in its resistance to the expansionist Ottomans. They finally conquered the city of Constantinople in 1453, thus wiping out the last remnants of the former Roman Empire.

At the same time, pressure on the Roman Church’s territory increased as the Ottomans advanced westward. Rattling their sabers on the border of the “Holy Roman Empire,” the Ottomans posed a particularly strong threat to the papacy at a time when an Augustinian monk in Wittenberg was protesting against the lucrative and, above all, completely contrary to the Gospel trade in indulgences. The military forces of the papacy were tied up in defending against the advancing Ottomans and were therefore unavailable to combat the emerging Reformation movement.

With the sack of Constantinople by the conquerors from France and Northern Italy, who were (actually) under the wing of the Roman bishop, the relationship between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church was permanently shattered.

Remembering history differently

But what the heck, never mind. Long live ecumenism, and the Pope has vigorously maintained his claim to primacy, albeit “only” as “honorary head” over all churches (Info). Regarding differences in doctrine, the Church of Rome, during the time of the “Church Fathers,” proved very willing to compromise (Info).

Today, the Church of Rome invokes its “incapacity to err” in matters of faith and therefore appears completely immovable. But this, as was also evident in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1999 (Info), is merely a matter of wording. Just as the “Apostles’ Creed” contains details that everyone can interpret as they wish (e.g., “communion of saints”), future agreements will also be worded in such a way that they may appear to be an agreement.

Nicaea – Beginning of the common path

The year 2025 marks the 1700th anniversary of the first ecumenical council in Nicaea. This is a reason to resolve a particularly painful circumstance. It concerns the different dates for Easter. Decided in close communion in Nicaea near Constantinople, the date has been changed over the centuries, with disputes, divisions, and, above all, the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII.

The Western Church celebrates a different date for Easter than the Eastern Church. “The time is ripe,” said Bishop Bertram Meier. Now it is time to finally work on a common Easter date. After all, the “will” is there. (Source).

Hardly any other date seems as important to the Church of Rome as Easter. Taking its actual biblical origin, Passover, symbolizing Israel’s exodus from Egypt and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, it summarily declared a purely “Jewish affair” in order to strictly tie Easter to a Sunday (“sunday”). The festival of colorful Easter eggs and the hare is of thoroughly pagan origin (Info).

Setting the actual festival on its original date, i.e., from Nisan 14, is not even up for debate. If one were to follow the biblical (not explicitly “Jewish” only, Leviticus 23:4-8) guidelines, then the “Easter date,” i.e., the actual Passover, would fall on any day of the week, because the biblical (lunar) calendar has little in common with the Gregorian (and already Julian) solar calendar.

The Church of Rome is solely concerned with defining the common Sunday, the “venerable day of the sun,” which Emperor Constantine established as a legal holiday in 321. As “sun god worshippers” among themselves, the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches take nothing away from each other. Both come from the same stable, the same motif, the same paganism, the same veneration of Mary, simply differences in various details.

They are all drunk on the wine of the harlot

The current head of the Greek Orthodox Church, Bartholomew I, also appears visibly drunk on the Roman wine of Babylon. He praises Bishop Meier as “one of the most important figures in contemporary Christianity.” He is tirelessly committed to ecumenism, as well as “a just, peaceful society and the preservation of creation.” He adds that one must remember Nicaea, where the common path ultimately begins. Bartholomew looks forward to embarking on this path together with the new Bishop of Rome, Leo XIV.

The bottom line, as always. A Christian veneer of reconciliation for a common purpose. Ecumenism, a global alliance for common rebellion against God and His law (Info). The introduction of one’s own rules and moral standards, all of which are completely contrary to God’s will. Woe to those who, in contrast, wish to remain faithful to the gospel (Revelation 12:17).

Bibelverse aus Schlachter 2000