On the cross, before His death, Christ entrusts the care of His Mother to the Apostle John: "Woman, behold Thy son." Then he says to the disciple: "Behold thy Mother!" (John 19:26-27). Such an adoption could not have taken place if the Virgin Mary had other sons, since the duties of Jesus Christ in relation to His Mother would have to be automatically transferred to the eldest son, i.e. James. Who was the mother of these "brothers" of Jesus? Is it possible to find an indication of this in the Holy Scriptures? Can. Speaking of the women standing on Golgotha at the Cross of the Lord, the holy Evangelist John the Theologian names three Marys: "At the cross of Jesus stood His mother, and His mother's sister Mary of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). The Evangelists Matthew (27:56), Mark (15:40) and Luke (24:10) call Mary of Cleopas the mother of James and Josiah.

The Evangelists do not mention whether Mary of Cleopas was the matter of Simon and Judas (not Iscariot). But since Simon and Judas are also called the "brothers" of Jesus, and their names stand next to James and Josiah, we have the right to assert that they were also the children of Mary of Cleopas. The Most Holy Virgin Mary is nowhere and never called their mother. There is also other evidence of this. Thus, for example, Judas calls himself the brother of Jacob (Jude 1). This James, clearly different from one of the brothers, the sons of Zebedee, was the chief bishop of the Church in Jerusalem. The holy Apostle Paul calls him the brother of the Lord (Galatians 1:19), i.e. the son of Mary of Cleopas, a relative of the Most Holy Virgin Mary. There is no deliberate mention of Simon in the Holy Scriptures in this sense, but there is an indication by the most ancient historian of the Church, Egesippus, that he, Simon, was also the son of Mary of Cleopas. However, if anyone wants to dispute this instruction, we do not care: let Simon be the son of someone else, this will not prevent him from being called the brother of the Lord, if there is a reason for it. The Most Holy Virgin Mary was the only daughter of the parents Joachim and Anna, and, therefore, Mary of Cleopas could only be Her cousin or second cousin, and the "brothers" of Jesus were only the second or fourth cousins of the Lord. For a normal person, everything seems to be clear. But the Most Wise One says: "Pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle together with the grain, his foolishness shall not be separated from him" (Proverbs of Solomon 27:22). Oh, if only it were foolishness! The stubborn desire to disagree with the arguments of reason and with the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, the irrepressible desire to assert at all costs that the Virgin Mary had other children, and most importantly, the blasphemous desecration of the Mother of God by sectarians, involuntarily makes one think that in addition to "ignorance" and "stupidity" their will is also enslaved by the "prince of this world."

Unable to refute that the "brothers" of Jesus were the sons of Mary of Cleopas, the sectarians say: "... if Jesus Christ was the firstborn, then it means that there were subsequent children no longer from the Holy Spirit, but from Joseph." But the Holy Scriptures say otherwise. In biblical language, the firstborn is everyone who is born first, even if there are no other children after this birth (Exodus 13:2; 34:19-20). In this sense, Christ Himself calls Himself the "firstborn": "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last" (Rev. 1:10); "Thus saith the First and the Last, who was dead, and behold, he lives" (Rev. 2:8). The words of the Evangelist Matthew: "And I did not know her, until at last she gave birth to her firstborn son" (Matthew 1:25), can in no way be understood in the sense that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph "knew" Mary. The Greek word eos u, "as at last," is a negative form of expression to mean that Joseph "did not know" Mary before and after the birth of Jesus Christ. In the Gospel account of the Annunciation, an angel said to the Most Holy Virgin Mary: "And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bear a son, and shalt call His name Jesus." And Mary said, How shall this be, since I know no man? (Luke 1:34). From these words of Her it is evident that She was not Joseph's wife, as the sectarians assure. But Joseph, an aged widower, betrothed to Her in order to take care of Her, without intending to live with Her in marriage. Knowing this, we understand Her perplexity.

The Jews had the most sacred thing – the Ark of the Covenant, in which the stone tablets of the Covenant, the golden vessel of manna and the vegetated rod of Aaron were kept. No one dared to touch this ark. A Jew named Uzzah who touched this holy object was immediately punished with death (2 Samuel 6:1-7). How would Joseph have dared not only to touch, but also to "know" the New Testament Ark, in which the Son of God dwelt? The Archangel Gabriel calls the Virgin Mary grace-filled and blessed among women (Luke 1:28). He says that He who is born of Her is of the Holy Spirit. Elizabeth calls Her the blessed and Mother of the Lord. One of the Jewish women says, "Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the breasts that nourished thee" (Luke 11:27). The Virgin Mary Herself, according to the words of the Archangel, says: "From henceforth all generations shall bless Me" (Luke 1:48). To assert after this that the Most Holy Virgin Mary had children with Joseph means to pronounce blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it means to commit a devilish sin, which will not be forgiven either in this or in the next age!

On the Unification of Churches

The convocation of the Catholic Ecumenical Council by the Pope of Rome caused many interpretations and judgments both in the press and in the conversations of private individuals. They became interested in the convocation of this Council in the hope that there could be a certain degree and form of unification of the Catholic and other Christian Churches, and first of all the Orthodox. The Roman Catholics are intensively engaged in propaganda in this direction, understanding, of course, unification in the sense of the full unification of the Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church. But all the Catholic hype around their upcoming Ecumenical Council and the possibility of the unification of the Churches is only a theory, without any practical application. The highest aspiration of all Christians should be the creation of the unity of the Church of Christ on earth. Christ founded one Church. It is His mystical body. The head of the Body of Christ, the Church, is Christ. Thus, the preservation of the unity of the Church is the law of her Divine Founder. Disunity or tearing apart the unity of the Church is a great sin against the Lord Himself.

But the true Church of Christ has remained and is one. In its mystical unity, it is inseparable. If there are different Christian Churches in the world today, then they are only fragments of it. The gates of hell will not prevail against the true Church until the end of the world, according to the word of Christ the Savior. And this true Church exists; it is, one, holy, catholic and apostolic – it is the Orthodox Church. It does not need to unite or reunite with any other Church. To it, as to the true Church of Christ, must be joined by all the other Churches seeking unity. In this sense, the Orthodox Church views the unity of the Churches, for which she prays at the litanies during the Divine services. Catholics organize weeks of prayer for the unification of the Christian Churches, but they understand this unification only around Rome and the Vatican under the primacy of the Pope. They do not recognize any other way of unification. They think over and invent various means and methods of how best and more successfully to achieve this without any damage to Catholic doctrine.

However, the Orthodox cannot accept the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the Pope of Rome, on the filioque, on the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, on purgatory, and on many Catholic doctrines. To accept them is to become a Roman Catholic. All the missionary work of the Vatican boils down to this, but it is unacceptable for Orthodoxy. On the part of the Pope of Rome, there has not been and cannot be an invitation to the Orthodox to take part in the Ecumenical Catholic Council convened by him. To do this, it would first be necessary to change the canonical rules of the Roman Church. Orthodox Christians can only be admitted to this Council as observers or guests on an equal footing with journalists. But such a presence of the Orthodox at the Ecumenical Catholic Council cannot have any practical significance for the unification of the Churches. Both before the Council and after the Council, everything will remain the same. Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras expressed his point of view on the matter of the unification of the Churches. Literally, the Patriarch told the Greek journalist P. Palaiologos the following: "The Orthodox Church is ready to recognize the primacy of the Pope on the condition that he is recognized as the first among equals, and not the first if all the other heads of the Churches are equal, which would resemble a monarchical doctrine over Christianity." If the Pope recognizes this, then the first step towards the unification of the two Churches will be made. Each Church would retain its present form and practice until theologians found a way to overcome some doctrinal differences. On these conditions, the Patriarch would be ready to visit the Pope if he agreed to pay him a return visit. The Patriarch sees no reason to avoid participating in the Vatican Council if other Orthodox and Protestant Churches take part in it, since there was a report that "observers" would be invited.

This is the point of view of the Patriarch of Constantinople, but it in no way reflects the opinion of all the other Orthodox Patriarchs and Metropolitans, the heads of the Local Orthodox Churches. They may have a different point of view and a different approach to this issue. In any case, it can be definitely judged that the forthcoming Vatican Council will not bring about a significant change in the Christian world. Its decrees will affect only the Roman Catholic Church. The disunity of Christians will remain in the same form, the apostasy from the Truth of Christ will continue, godlessness and materialism will strengthen their strength. The signs of this are obvious.

The Problem of the Pan-Orthodox Church Council

Under the impression of Pope John of Rome's convocation of the 23rd Ecumenical Catholic Council, voices began to be heard among the Orthodox about the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Church Council. There is a great deal of material for discussion at this Council. Pan-Orthodox conferences were already convened in the years before the Second World War, at which theologians discussed various problems of a theological nature. The first such conference was held on Holy Mount Athos, and the second in Athens. In September 1961, a Conference of representatives of all the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches on the island of Rhodes was held. This Conference was attended by 80 delegates from 12 Orthodox Churches. In all these Conferences and Conferences there was only an exchange of views on various current issues of church life. No important decisions have been made. Instead, different points of view emerged between church delegates from the countries of the communist bloc and the rest of the Orthodox world. This divergence was clearly expressed at the Rhodes Conference. Delegates of the sub-Soviet Church tried to introduce politics in favor of the Communists. Others disagreed, except for delegates from Communist Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. The latter stood on the side of the Soviet delegation. In 1963, an inter-Orthodox Church Council was convened again on the island of Rhodes. To prepare for this Council, a special committee will be formed, with its headquarters, probably on the island of Rhodes. The main initiator of all these pan-Orthodox conferences is the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pan-Orthodox Councils cannot be ecumenical without the participation of delegates from all Christian Churches. But these Christian Churches must be Orthodox in faith. An Ecumenical Council cannot consist of heterodox churches. For these reasons, even the Catholic Council now convened by the Pope of Rome is not Ecumenical, although it is so called by the Catholics.

The last Ecumenical Council took place in 787. This was the 7th Ecumenical Council. After him, there were no more Ecumenical Councils. There were many reasons that prevented the convocation of the Eighth Ecumenical Council. The first reason was that in 867, during the patriarchate of Patriarch Photius of Constantinople (857-867), the Roman Patriarchate fell away from the Universal Orthodox Church, and in 1054 this falling away was finally consolidated. Without the participation of the Roman Patriarchate, the Ecumenical Council would not be complete, just as the Ecumenical Council cannot take place without the Eastern Orthodox Church. An Ecumenical Council is possible with the unity of all Churches. A serious reason for the impossibility of convening an Ecumenical Council was the conquest by the Arabs of the Orthodox East, North Africa and Spain. Three Patriarchs: Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch suffered greatly from the invasion of the Muslim Arabs. The Muslim Arabs, admirers of Mohammed, did not allow the Orthodox to participate in the Council.