The Russian Orthodox Church believes that a union between Phanar and the Vatican may soon be declared

The Russian Orthodox Church believes that a union between Phanar and the Vatican may soon be declared

Patriarch Bartholomew has renounced true Christianity, says the famous Orthodox priest Father Vsevolod Chaplin. Thus, in an interview with the Federal News Agency, the cleric commented on the statement of the head of the Phanar that there are no dogmatic differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. There are only historical differences.

According to sources of the portal “Union of Orthodox Journalists”, during his last visit to the holy Mount Athos, the Phanar Patriarch said that the unity of the Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholics is inevitable. For most of the monks, these words of Bartholomew became a bolt from the blue, some of them even cried, but no one dared to object.

However, various kinds of signals about rapprochement with Catholicism from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is now more correctly called Istanbul, have been going on for a long time. Starting with the translation of the calendar of services to the Gregorian calendar in the 20s of the last century and ending with the joint services of Phanar hierarchs with Catholics. True, recently the number of alarm bells has increased. At almost every convenient and inconvenient occasion, Bartholomew makes curtsies towards Catholics. So on November 25, during a meeting with a delegation from Tbilisi University, as reported by the Greek website Romfea, the head of Phanar said that dialogue with other Christians, especially with the Roman Catholic Church, is one of the priorities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

“The Phanar has long been following the path of radical ecumenism, completely ignoring the extremely important differences in faith between Catholics and Orthodox,” noted Vsevolod Chaplin.

According to him, all of Bartholomew’s main actions have long been aimed at pleasing those in power in the West.

“There have already been joint services with Catholics more than once. Recently, Bartholomew received an award from a woman - the bishop of a Swedish pseudo-religious organization, where so-called same-sex marriages are being blessed with might and main. That is, Phanar, by its behavior, shows that the question of truth is not important for it, but applause, signals of approval and integration into the political elites in the West are important,” the FAN interlocutor believes.

ru.wikipedia.org /

In the case of Phanar, there is an attempt to adapt at any cost to the Western establishment, which, in essence, is anti-God. And the whole Ukrainian history with the recognition of the OCU is following the same vector, the priest believes.

“At some point, Phanar was given the command “fas”, and he, disregarding all his previous statements and promises, just like Hitler, without declaring war, began an attack on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. And we are once again convinced that there is no Christ in the Patriarchate of Constantinople now. And there is a thirst for money and huge ambitions.”

At the same time, the Phanar clearly strives for union with Catholics.

“If Bartholomew’s words were correctly translated and he really stated that there are no dogmatic differences between Orthodox and Catholics, then this is a completely clear renunciation of the faith.”

Any more or less literate Orthodox priest will say that Orthodoxy has fundamental differences with Catholicism, in particular regarding the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

“Catholics are also characterized by unhealthy religious practices, when spirituality is replaced by soulfulness, emotionality and almost quasi-sexual experiences towards Christ. All this speaks of the deep retreat of the Catholic world from Christian truth,” noted Father Vsevolod.

According to him, those representatives of local churches who care about their position in Western society will follow Bartholomew.

“It is regrettable, but most likely, after some hesitation, the majority of the hierarchs of the Greek local churches will submit to the Phanar’s guidelines for union with the Catholics.”

wikipedia.org/Kremlin.ru/CC BY-SA 4.0

However, in Greek Orthodoxy there are many who reject the policy of Bartholomew. In particular, on Mount Athos there is a monastery and monasteries where the name of Bartholomew is not mentioned in services, which means a refusal to recognize him as the true patriarch.

“At the same time, I do not believe that we are on the verge of some kind of split between Slavic and Greek Orthodoxy. This is a false idea that is being planted by the fifth column in our church,” the cleric emphasized.

In his opinion, in Greece, Cyprus, and Mount Athos there are quite a large number of believers who will not agree to union and will remain in the position of true Orthodoxy.

“Therefore, a cleansing division will take place among almost every Orthodox people. And our task is to support those who will be on our side, and not get hung up on critical dialogue with those who are determined to integrate into the Western godless elites.”

Father Vsevolod did not rule out that in the near future the heads of Phanar and the Vatican will announce the creation of a new union.

“A creeping union is underway, and I do not exclude that at one of the so-called inter-Christian meetings, Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew will announce that they are establishing Eucharistic communion, or will declare the absence of any insoluble dogmatic contradictions between Catholics and Orthodox. This will already be a union. All this can happen without the decision of the councils, without broad discussion. Simply by the arrogant will of the current head of Phanar.”

wikipedia.org / Wikipedia

There is a possibility that the Russian Orthodox Church will remain silent or behave too delicately. And this is always a losing tactic.

In turn, Vakhtang Kipshidze, , noted in a commentary to FAN that the church is conducting its own dialogue with Catholics.

“The Russian Orthodox Church, which is the largest Orthodox Church in the world, has its own dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. This dialogue is based on finding ways to interact in areas where we can interact. This includes the fight for traditional family values, care for persecuted Christians, and much more,” he stated.

According to Kipshidze, the dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church is based not only on the recognition of a single Christian principle, but also on the affirmation of the identity of both churches. This position helps to build mutually beneficial cooperation.

As for Phanar, it is a small religious organization that represents only itself, and all the statements that Phanar makes have nothing to do with the position of the Russian Orthodox Church and other local Orthodox churches, says the deputy chairman of the Synodal Department of the Russian Orthodox Church.

“Bartholomew’s statement is the private position of the head of a small foreign religious organization. We cannot comment on it at all, since it has nothing to do with the Russian Orthodox Church,” summed up FAN’s interlocutor.

On November 16, the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, announced his intention to introduce a new sin for harming the environment. Moreover, this may happen in the near future. According to the pope, adding unconscious environmental behavior to the register of Catholic sins will help believers think about environmental problems.

Literature

• Church Union // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg, 1890-1907.
• Volkonsky A. M.
  Catholicism and the Sacred Tradition of the East. — Paris, 1933.
• Moskalik Ya. Concept of the Church of Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky. Lviv, 1997
• Senyk S. The Ukrainian Church and Latinization // Orientalia Christiana Periodica. 1990. Vol. 56. P. 165—187
• Senyk Sofia. Union of Brest: summing up // 400 years of the Brest Church Union (1596-1996): Critical reassessment. M., 1998. pp. 13-28.

Registration of the union

Metropolitan Michael of Kiev appoints a Council for October 6, 1596. A delegation headed by governor N. Radzwill travels from the king to Brest. Of the seven bishops of the Western Russian Church, five accepted the position of metropolitan, and two remained on the side of Orthodoxy. The ambassadors of the patriarchs of the Eastern Church also headed to the Council. However, on the day appointed for the Council, the Orthodox side was not informed about the beginning. Having not received an invitation, the Orthodox ambassadors gathered for their Council. It approved two provisions:

• Russian bishops who approved the union were defrocked;
• any decision on union without the consent of the Eastern patriarchs was illegal.

The ambassadors of King Sigismund III to Prince Ostrog were unable to achieve agreement on the union; all negotiations ended in mutual reproaches. Therefore, at the Uniate Council a declaration was adopted, where the Russian bishops announced the recognition of the primacy of the pope and the sending of their representatives to swear an oath of allegiance to the throne of Rome. The Orthodox Council, chaired by Nicephorus, held a trial of the apostate priests and defrocked them.

Choose an answer

Statements by Orthodox hierarchs regarding union with Greek Catholics

It would seem, what “beautiful” words? However, for some reason, Orthodox Christians not only in Ukraine, but also in Europe, did not want to hear this call for unification. Moreover, not so long ago, the Greek Metropolitan of Konitsky and Pogoniansky Andrey said the following about this:

“Unia is a system of lies and deceit. It has caused great harm in Ukraine and the Middle East” (3). Moreover, this is not the first time that the hierarchs of the Orthodox Churches in Europe have spoken in a similar way regarding the union between Orthodox and Catholics and, in particular, regarding the Union of Brest. For example, two previous joint declarations between Orthodox and Catholics (Freising (1990) and Balamand (1993)) reject Uniatism as a method of achieving church unity, and also do not recognize the Greek Catholic churches as a model of such unity. In this sense, the joint statement of Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis fundamentally did not add anything new to the assessment of Uniatism.

The same attitude towards union was expressed at almost all the meetings (“synaxis”) of the Primates of the Autocephalous and Autonomous Orthodox Churches. So, for example, on March 13-15, 1992, a “synaxis” of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches took place in Phanar (Istanbul), the participants of which clearly condemned the activities of the Uniates in Ukraine:

“...In particular, we note and condemn the activities of the Uniates under the leadership of the Roman Church in Ukraine...directed against our church” (4), the message said.

Greek theologians on union

The majority of Orthodox theologians in Western Europe and, in particular, in Greece take an even tougher position towards union with Catholics. For example, Protopresbyter George Metallinos, an ordinary professor of the history of theology at the University of Athens, in his article “Union. Personality and guise” gives an unambiguously negative assessment of the union as such and the Union of Brest in particular:

“The Union of Brest is the result of the Roman Uniate,” writes Fr. George, that is, the method that the feudal papacy used to subjugate Orthodoxy to Rome. The ingenious premise included in this method is the so-called preservation of freedom and continuity of Eastern traditions... Metallinos concludes that Uniatism, and especially the Union of Brest, is a terrible phenomenon, it is a fifth column, a concept dangerous for Christian unity” (5).

Adjunct professor of church history at the University of Athens, Mr. Dimitrios Gonis, echoes him. In particular, speaking about the Union of Brest, he accuses Ukrainian Greek Catholics of adhering to nationalist ideas and unlawfully embodying the Orthodox Church with Russia and the Soviet Union, calling Uniatism a “chameleon strategy” and a Trojan horse of the Western Church. A similar opinion is shared by most modern Greek theologians. Moreover, in 1992, a declaration was published in Athens by the theological section of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Athens and the Faculty of Theology of the University of Thessalonica, which stated:

“Vatican leaders should know that religious fanaticism cannot be stopped by desire alone, and yet the Uniates direct their violence, uncontrolled and inexhaustible blind fanaticism against peoples who now more than ever need peace and harmony... This once again confirms everyone knows the hypocritical attitude of the Vatican towards the Orthodox Church in general: in words, in dialogue, the papal throne rejects Uniateism as a path to unity and at the same time directs Uniate violence, no matter in what geographical region it arises... On its today (January 20, 1992 .) session, the theological section unanimously condemns the Vatican’s policy directed against the suffering Orthodox peoples” (6).

Considering what Ukrainian Greek Catholics did in Western Ukraine in the early to mid-90s, the above accusations of hypocrisy sound quite plausible, namely: while representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and UOC, on the one hand, and the Vatican and the UGCC, on the other hand, they created joint commissions to resolve the situation in Western Ukraine; Ukrainian Greek Catholics seized Orthodox churches without a shadow of embarrassment, thereby effectively disrupting any agreements. Ultimately, three Orthodox dioceses were destroyed in Western Ukraine. For example, in Lviv, out of 19 Orthodox churches operating at that time (end of 1990), almost all were captured. In Ivano-Frankivsk, all 5 operating Orthodox churches were selected. A similar situation occurred in other western regions of Ukraine.