Talks about ecumenism - the rapprochement and restoration of the unity of Christian churches - are over. Let it be with their own, far from association goals, but 70 years (yes, from 1946 year), the Orthodox and Catholic churches courted each other. Today it is already obvious that the pope Francis went over to the offensive. There, where it is thin. In Ukraine.
In the past, the Jesuit (and the Jesuits are not "past", and this is not a metaphor, but a charter) waited patiently while the dreams of lace panties of the European Union, ATU "for several hours", the life-giving force of the Euroassociation, visa, tranches of the IMF , about the soonest happiness after the victory Jamal at Eurovision, etc. But something went wrong, optimism was diminished, and the poor people are waiting for a comforter. Here and there comes the daddy in a white cassock with a pelerinka.
The idea is simple to genius: if the three Uniate regions of Ukraine were able to impose their political ideology throughout the country, then why not to impose the union itself? When the papists discard the inter-church polytes and go on the offensive for the time being, it is difficult to predict. Apparently, when they are convinced that success is guaranteed. Otherwise, without getting Ukraine, Rome will completely ruin relations with the Orthodox churches. But the ideological preparation for the offensive is in full swing.
It can not be said that the pope was sitting idly by while the Kiev authorities tried to unite the incompatible - the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church with the pseudo-religious organization "Kyiv Patriarchate". Let's remember the January 2014 prayer of Francis for "peace and constructive dialogue" in Ukraine, after which he released from the window two white pigeons. They were immediately attacked by crows and seagulls. Many interpretations of this drama have appeared, but for the believer's person (and Francis has to be counted among them) there can be only one interpretation: the Lord did not accept his prayer. Prayers are deceitful and hypocritical, since the pope has many sources of reliable information. He knew who was carrying the torchlight processions, he could and should have known that there was no beating of students on the Maidan, he saw what the whole world saw: how "constructive opponents" burn the militiamen with "Molotov cocktails" and poke their eyes with "Hutsul peaks ".
At first, the Pope reminded of love to Ukraine, mainly in Easter and Christmas, in a number of countries, whose peoples suffer from wars, however, always singling it out somehow, finding a few special words. But last year the Ukrainian people did not quit the Holy See, and the subject of speeches became richer: from the admiration of the Ukrainian embroideries to the Holodomor, which was declared in Ukraine as an act of genocide of the Ukrainian people, and which in any case did not affect the Uniate and then the Polish one Galicia. That is, the pope declares himself to be the shepherd of the whole of Ukraine.
There are great doubts that Pope Francis or the papal nuncio (the Vatican ambassador) in Kiev, the Archbishop Claudio Gugerotti will distinguish Ukrainian embroidery from Belarusian, Russian, Romanian or Mordovian. More important is another statement of the nuncio for Catholic Christmas, when, entering into the rage, he passed on the pope's words to the flock: "The Ukrainian people, you're pretty, I love you, and I'm near you! You are beautiful! Go ahead, rebuild your land! ". The refutation of the militant "Gott mit uns" did not follow.
It seems that Nuncio did not exaggerate too much. 28 January of this year, Pope Francis visited the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Rome and told parishioners that he "starts and ends his every day" in Ukrainian ": every morning, waking up, greets with an icon presented to him by the head of Ukrainian Uniates, and going to sleep , he kisses her. A more transparent hint to the Ukrainians, how they can finally become Europeans, can not be imagined.
One can argue about whom the pope has celebrated Mass - the Lord, the "God of Peace" or Satan, the "Prince of Peace" - by stating or making a reservation: "I ask the Prince of Peace to stop the weapon." In the Bible, the last epithet is used once or twice for the Messiah. But in the most important part of the speech he did not make a reservation, where he thanked for "selfless work" "thousands of Ukrainian women, domestic workers who help the elderly and children in Italy." This is the gratitude of the owner to the servants. Because Ukrainian housemaids are forced to "help" the Italian old people and children for their salaries, while their own old people and children are left without home help. Francis thanked the Ukrainians for doing their job well for the salary they offered. That's all. Jesuit, he is a Jesuit.
The creeping offensive of the UGCC began before Francis. Back in August 2005 with the "blessing" of the President of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko and dads Benedict XVI (Josef Alois Ratzinger) the episcopal department of the UGCC was moved from Lvov to Kiev, and its head accordingly turned from "The Most Blessed Supreme Archbishop of Lviv" to "The Most Blessed Supreme Archbishop of Kiev-Galich." It is almost "Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia and All Russia" after the Brest church union of 1596, which subdued the Orthodox Church of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to the Pope.
Apart from the small independent Mukachevo Greek Catholic diocese in Transcarpathia, which arose in the 18 century, the Ukrainian Uniat Church actually for the first time went beyond Galicia. A few years before the transfer of the department to Kiev and within a few years there were created eight exarchates of the UGCC, covering all regions of Ukraine!
A couple of fun moments. A separate Crimean exarchate was singled out from Odesa-Crimea 13 February 2014, a week short before the coup d'etat: it seems that the Uniat churchmen were preparing for a great work on the peninsula. And the latter began the service of the exarchate in the Khmelnytsky region bordering with Galicia. To call him the name of the hetman, who sometimes spared the Jews and Catholics, but never - the Uniates, it was impossible. We stopped at the Kamenets-Podilsky Exarchate after the name of the second most significant city in the region, despite the fact that Khmelnitsky became the bishop's residence.
Last year, the Orthodox hierarchs, including the "first among equals" - the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew - it was finally possible to explain to the Kiev clever men that without the consent of the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, the transfer of the UOC to the subordination of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the recognition of the Kyiv Patriarchate, the unification of churches, etc. are impossible. Church rules are somewhat different from the secular ones: the Orthodox Abkhazia and South Ossetia are still formally in the bosom of the Georgian Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox of Crimea are in the bosom of the UOC.
Talk about "church reform" subsided. Perhaps this is another signal of preparation for the "alternative solution" - the spread of the church union with the pope to the whole of Ukraine. And, probably, the chaotic letter of the head of the Kyiv Patriarchate Filaret the patriarch Cyril. But from here also the sharp activation of attempts to capture the neo-Nazis Orthodox churches for their transfer to the Kyiv Patriarchate. Show strength is the only chance Filaretov. Maurus did his job, but does not want to leave.
Further, without a historical excursion can not do. The perversion of minds begins with the distortion of terms. Thus, the completely artificial term "Byzantium" was introduced into the intellectual West European environment only in the 14-15 centuries. The "Byzantines" themselves did not know about "Byzantium" and called their state the same as they called a thousand years: "Roma (Roman) Empire", and themselves "Romans". "Byzantium" was invented in order to break in the minds of Europeans the connection between Constantinople and its Roman history, to tie the term "Roman Empire" exclusively to the West, to strengthen claims for the universal status of the so-called "Pope of Rome," just a provincial bishop-schismatic of one of the cities that belonged to the Roma Empire until 751. Well, let's not bring confusion and continue to call this Byzantine empire. By the way, in the same way in 15-17 centuries Polish diplomacy intensively introduced the term "Muscovy" in Europe in relation to the Kingdom of Russia in Europe. It did not pass here.
In general, the division of the Roman Empire in 395 into the "Western" and "Eastern" empires is another historical cliche. In the Empire itself, such a section was not perceived as a division into two states, but periodically arose from the time Octavian и Anthony was a form of joint government. When one of the co-rulers died (perished, lost power), unity was restored or another recognized the new co-ruler. The overthrow of the chieftain of the barbarians Odoakrom in 476 of the Emperor of Rome Romula Augustul and sending his crown to Constantinople to the emperor Zeno meant not the "fall" of the Western Roman Empire, but the restoration (albeit formal) of the unity of the empire (words Odoacra: "For both sides it is enough to have one Zeno as their common emperor"). The Emperor Justinian returned full power over Italy, North Africa and part of Spain and Rome until 751 year was actually part of the Byzantine Empire with its capital in Constantinople. And half a century remained with the francs, again formally.
Only with coronation Charlemagne ("Charles Augusta") in Rome in 800, an independent Frankish "Empire of the West" emerged, transformed in 962 into a friable, but "Sacred (!) Roman Empire" (evaluate the notion of the papists). Such efforts were made by the papacy for hundreds of years to prove only equality with the patriarch of Constantinople. And this is not to mention fakes, such as, for example, "Constantine's gift" (supposedly a letter Constantine the Great, the founder of New Rome - Constantinople, the Pope Sylvester with the concession to him of all power over the Western empire). What will not go to the bastard to prove a noble lineage. Well, and achieving equality, Rome began to seek supremacy.
Without the unification of local Orthodox churches, it will be difficult to confront the Vatican. The critical situation around the Patriarchate of Constantinople also calls for unification. Ankara does not recognize the special status of the Constantinople Church in world Orthodoxy, considering it only one of the religious associations of Turkey. So, only a citizen of this country can be elected as a patriarch. But the Greeks in Turkey remained only a few thousand, and the last seminary (the Khalkhin theological school) closed in 1971. Economically, Constantinople is saved by its dioceses in northern Greece. It's not that. Ankara "went to meet" Bartholomew and gave citizenship to three dozen bishops, of which, obviously, the next patriarch will be chosen. But the option: first the election of a patriarch of hundreds of bishops of all Orthodox churches, and then the appropriation of his citizenship, is excluded. That is, Ankara makes it clear that a churchman can not become a patriarch of Constantinople, to which Turkey "has questions" or whose country of origin is "unfriendly" to Turkey. And this is interference.
Constantinople was conquered by the Ottomans in 1453. It is believed that the last pieces of Byzantium that survived it were the Despotate of the Sea and the Trebizond Empire, destroyed in 1460 and 1461. This is not entirely true: the principality (ducat) of Theodoro survived until 1475. This princedom lay in the Mountain Crimea, occasionally beating off the Genoese and the southern coast of the Crimea. His capital was Doros fortress on Mount Mangup. The name is possible from the Gothic: "human (populated) head (top)".
Nothing prevents to create an extraterritorial residence of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Crimea, in the same Doros (developing Mangup and as a tourist object). There is a precedent: after the annexation of Antioch (Antakya) by Turkey in 1939, the residence of the patriarch of Antioch was transferred to Damascus. There is also no "clever plan" for promoting international recognition of Crimean's Russian identity: we will repeat, we are talking about the extraterritorial property of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
New Rome - Constantinople began to be built by Constantine the Great at the same time as the beginning of the establishment of Christianity in the Empire. Not Rome, but Constantinople - the capital of the "Great Homeland" of Christianity. The New Testament was written in Greek, but the first three centuries of Christian Byzantium its state language was Latin, the mother of the languages of most modern Catholic countries. Supplementing the list of official languages of the unified Orthodox Church with Italian, Spanish, French, as well as Polish, English, German and, above all, Latin, as a working language, would be a serious request of the Orthodox Church for the return of its universal rights.
Christianity is the religion of freedom. Yes, there are dark and bloody pages in its history. But all the commandments, the obligations of man before God, boil down to two, and in fact, to one - the love of God and the love of neighbor as to himself (already the union of love for God and for man by a single Supreme Love - Agape - sounded like "blasphemy "). Only the freedom of Christianity could engender the Renaissance, Humanism, Enlightenment. But "our virtues are a continuation of our shortcomings". And vice versa. Using Christian ideology, the elite created a new "religion" that kills Christianity. It is a tolerance that has all the signs of a dense, totalitarian ideology. In the first place - the punishment for refusal, the more public, to profess it. They are not burned at the stake, but they are destroyed morally, civilly, professionally, turned into an outcast.
Christianity in Europe perishes, churches are closed or at best "enlarged" - gathering Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists for general masses (this is the kind of "forced ecumenism"). Orthodoxy can become a hope for Europeans who do not accept a new "religion" that supersedes Christianity. Well, it's less categorical: to become an outside authority capable of exerting positive pressure on the policies of other churches.
Alas, the Orthodox churches for centuries can not agree on issues that from the point of view of the laity can hardly be called fateful. Many think that those Orthodox churches that celebrate the Nativity of Christ 25 December, switched to the Gregorian ("Catholic") calendar. This is a delusion: they switched to the New-Julian calendar of the Serbian mathematician Milutina Milankovic, by the way, more accurate than the Gregorian. But the Jerusalem, Russian, Georgian, Serbian, Polish Orthodox churches, Mount Athos and ... Ukrainian Greek Catholics do not "surrender". Or this disagreement: Ivan is married to Mary. Can Stepan, Ivan's brother, marry Anna, sister of Mary? Some churches allow this, others, and the ROC among them, believe that since the wedding of the first the second became a brother and sister. Too much debt liturgy in a dead language, too little time allowed to the priest to give a conversation with the parishioners in the language of the living. Minor claims a lot, it's not about them.
Orthodoxy faces the threat of a new Catholic "onslaught on the East," the most dangerous after the Brest Union. It is necessary to understand this threat with your mind and heart. And after that, look for a solution. Then it will be found.