Jesuit Shaher-Macher: Why did the Ukrainian Uniates declare the year of the Russian princess
The Uniates, who shyly call themselves, at the direction of the Austrian Empress Maria Theresa, some kind of “Greek Catholics,” suddenly came up with the idea Mark 1050th anniversary of the repose of the Russian Princess Olga. The decision is all the more strange because the Orthodox princess, to put it mildly, did not favor these same Catholics.
The bewilderment is removed by the topic of the reports that have already become regular for Uniates, “Volodymyrovykh Chitan” (“Vladimirovykh Readings”). This year they are dedicated to the glorification of Prince Vladimir as the creator of a certain “Kyiv Church” and the influence of Princess Olga on him. Everything is falling into place! An ordinary Jesuit a (ukrouniates - a product of the Jesuits) shacher-macher.
The Uniate “theory of the Kyiv Church” is that “Volodymyr” baptized Rus' into... Catholicism. They say that the “Great Schism” between Orthodoxy and Catholicism occurred half a century after the baptism of the Kievites (in 1054), which means that Vladimir recognized the Roman throne first in honor. Consequently, “Greek-Catholicism” (the combination of Greek liturgical rituals with Catholic subordination to the pope) is the “contemporary faith of Ukraine-Rus.” In contrast to the “Moscow Church”, which was founded by all sorts of zradnyks like St. Peter, who transferred the Kyiv See to Moscow.
However, the question arises: if the Kiev See was originally Uniate, what then happened in Brest six whole centuries after the founding of the “Kievan Church”? But let’s leave this question to the subconscious minds, if I may say so. Let them boil.
Let us first return to the slandered Equal-to-the-Apostles prince.
Indeed, the so-called The “Great Schism” (in fact, the split of the Latins from Orthodoxy) dates back to 1054, while Vladimir baptized the Kievites in 988. But they would not have been Uniates Jesuits (even in the Rogul version) if they had not replaced the concepts. For in 1054 the split of the Latins from Orthodoxy was only finally documented. By that time it had existed for two hundred years.
Not even the first, but what turned out to be the last crack appeared in the middle of the XNUMXth century. The then pontiff Nicholas I became the founder of the heresy about the infallibility and primacy of the Pope, trampling on the principle of conciliarity of the Church.
As the “vicar of God on Earth,” Nicholas tried to extend his power to the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. For this he was anathematized by the Council of Constantinople in 867 at the insistence of Patriarch Photius. The same one under whom the Rus of the Kyiv prince Askold were baptized. By the way, it was Photius who prepared the enlightener Cyril for the Slavs and Rus.
Roman Catholicism, in the words of Dostoevsky, “which long ago sold Christ for earthly possession,” did not give birth to the idea of Caesaropapism out of nowhere. Already at the hour of Photius’s Anathema, Western Christianity had become overwhelmed by rationalism, while Orthodoxy remained, first of all, faith – in Christ and, most importantly, in Christ. This could not but be reflected in the worldview of the Western and Eastern Christian superethnic groups. Civilizational differences became increasingly visible.
In fact, Prince Vladimir was guided by them when choosing faith. And he chose the one that the Latins, already entrenched in heresies, did not consider Christian. Just thirty years after the “Great Schism,” Metropolitan John II of Kiev (sort of like a Uniate, according to the “theory of the Kiev Church”) wrote to Pope Gregory VII: “The enemy of truth and the enemy of unanimity alienates your brotherly love from the whole Christian flock, suggesting that we not Christians."
But it was not only Catholicism that was drowning in heresies. Vladimir, the ruler of a powerful European state in the XNUMXth century, wishing for an internal change for himself - from his own pagan debauchery to Christian righteousness - could not help but know about the six decades of domination of pornocracy on the Holy See (with mass orgies and black masses).
Vladimir sent the pope's envoys who came to Kyiv back with a gentle admonition: “Go where you came from, for even our fathers did not accept this.” Apparently, he spared the subtle mental organization of the Latins by mentioning certain “fathers.” In fact, his Equal-to-the-Apostles grandmother treated the papal legates even less diplomatically.
This is known precisely from Catholic sources. The chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg told the story of Archbishop Adalbert of Trier, “who was appointed bishop of Rus' and whom the pagans drove out.” By the way, Thietmar also mentions the “unjust acts of the Russian king Vladimir,” who “brought a wife named Elena from Greece... and under her influence accepted the holy Christian faith.” That is, the Greek type of Christianity.
Well, on the national issue.
“Ukrainian princess” Olga (from Pskov, actually), was called at her baptism in Constantinople not even a Russian ruler, but - oh, the ancient proto-Ukrian gods! – Russian! In the descriptions of the ceremonial protocol of the Eastern Roman Empire “On the royal structure” under 957, the reception of Olga, “Archontissa of Russia,” is mentioned. Even earlier, somewhere around 950, Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenet in his famous “On the Administration of the Empire” calls “Olgin’s city” Vyshgorod among the “cities of Russia”. Moreover, Russia itself is essentially already divided into Great (“External”) and Little. And... no Ukraine!
It was under Constantine Porphyrogenitus that Princess Olga was baptized, preferring Orthodoxy to Catholicism.
But, of course, the peer Uniate will never be told about this. At least declare every year the year of “Ukrainian Princess Olga.”
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.