RUSSIA THE THIRD ROME?

 

SOLOVIEV APOCATASSIS

 

 

 

this blog defends the unity of Spain and its culture

 

 

 Vladimir SOLOVIEV prophet of modern times

 

 

 

 

 November month of the dead. Two friends have died. The rereading of Vladimir Soloviev helps me to forget about my earthly sorrows and to look up in the hope of the resurrection. Like a good Russian, this mystical author, philosopher, poet and great theologian, very contradictory but full of original ideas typical of a genius, is an enthusiast of the resurrection and makes his readers look up, not down or to the sides or to the ground but raises his eyes to God, the Christian god and announced something that is happening or has happened today. Eagle gaze prophetic eyes. When he wrote his great work Russia and the universal church, a dense book that he had to publish in Croatia since in his own homeland he was very persecuted and misunderstood shortly before the assassination of the Tsar, many considered that his riddles were failed because what came was not the Holy Russia but the Bolshevik revolution, the cataclysm of the Second World War in which 27 million men perished. He speaks of the rise of a third Rome in Moscow. In my opinion, this movement began in 1989 with the fall of the USSR and the restoration of Christianity, a fact that occurs despite the fact that it may sound paradoxical to some with Yeltsin and later with Putin and Mevdevev. You just have to browse the internet and check out the many religious programs and broadcasts that have originated in Petrograd and in many other parts of that great country. One idea that the wise Soloviev plays with is the messianic character that the Russians feel and their concern for humanity. Israel had that messianic spirit one day by divine delegation. However, with the restoration of atheistic and disbelieving globality, that task rests with the Slavic people. Another prophecy that he announces in his books is the resurgence of Islam as a strong, fanatical religion that is imposed by the sword and where religion and politics are intimately linked. Muhammad preached the strength of numbers - read democracy - and the little importance of the individual compared to the entire state. This is a derivative of the Christian heresies that gave rise to the Coram, which is based on the Egyptian monothelites who do not believe in the independence of the will of man and consider that every human act is governed by the fatalism of the Arabs. Makfutt everything is written and iconoclasm or the destruction of images with the denial of divine phenomenality in nature. The human being and the deity are in two superimposed planes that will never come together, unlike Christianity that preaches the divinization of man. In just five years of jihad or the preaching of holy war, the oldest patriarchates of Christendom fell: Antioch, Damascus and Alexandria. In the gospel god lowers himself to raise man up to god and in the Koran the believer is completely

INACCESSIBLE and must be submitted in soul and body to the divine will. Profoundly orthodox in his conception of the world, however, he defends the primacy of the papacy and formulates something very controversial for any orthodox believer who saw in Rome the great whore of Luther. It was for this that he was attacked in St. Petersburg. The Vatican versus the Sublime Porte was the axis on which the context of his great work, so discussed and debatable, revolves.

 

 Vladimir Soloviev, who counted Dostoyevsky among his circle of friends, who saw in him one of his characters from the Brothers Karamazov, Father Aliocha, the enlightened one who interrogates the Christ, and despite the fact that he influenced other writers such as Berdiaev, he had to go abroad. He published many of his works in French. His destiny was the persecution, the hatred, the ridicule of others, something that the great writers of the race know. He died in poverty at the age of 48. He was a yurodivi, a madman of Christ, a pilgrim of truth and a great linguist.

 

 He handled Hebrew and Greek, as well as German and French, but Soloviev studying the Byzantine world and the confusing and truculent relations between Rome and Orthodoxy is confusing and seems to move in a labyrinth. He accuses the Greeks of being supporters of the dead letter and of an empty Caesaropapism, ignoring the fact that Latin Catholicism was a Merovingian institution that links throne and altar as the source of all power, a power that comes from God, and that their fights with Constantinople they only led to scandalous truculences and Christological heresies that ended in the decadence that led to the schisms of Photius in 860 and Michael Cerularius in 1054. Everything would end with the Ottoman irruption in Hagia Sophia. In 1452.

 

 Once again we find ourselves with the sins of the church, the arrogance and the desire to dominate for not wanting to recognize some of the first