[The Jesuits secretly negotiated the Union of Brest-Litovsk with several people before the offical meeting was ever held. And during the final meeting, the vast majority of Orthodox bishops who attended (all who were opposed to the union) were kept in a seperate building until it was all over; all except for 2 who were allowed in.]

From: 'The Orthodox Church In The History of Russia' by Dimitry Pospielovsky

Page 92-93 regarding the union -

{Note: This section deals with a second memorandum sent to the Pope on their conditions for submission to the Pope. The first memorandum which consists of ten conditions was rejected by the pope. Rome ignored all these conditions, promising only that the metropolitan of Kiev would have full contol over the ancient Kiev Monastery of the Caves. The bishops responded by drafting a "Concilliar Address" to the pope, consisting of twenty six articles, which were delivered by the two bishops sent to Rome, Ipati-Potii of Vladimir-Volynsk, and Krill Terletsky of Lutsk. The articles included both a confession of faith and a number of requests -

1. The Holy spirit proceds from the Father THROUGH the Son
2. All orthodox liturgies and other rites should remain unchanged
3. The Eurcharist is to continue to be distributed under both species, according to Orthodox tradition
4. No objection to purgatory, "but we want to be true to the teachings of the Church." The new calendar can be accepted but the Paschal cycle should remain untouched, as well as those Orthodox feasts which are absent from the Roman Church, e.g., Epiphany
6. The rentention of married clergy
7. That only Russians or Greeks may be consecrated bishops (This reflects the fear that Poles might try and infiltrate the Church and gradually latinize and polonize it).
8 & 9: (Identical to the 8 &9 in the previous memo whic dealt with equal rights & privleges with the Latin Rite Bishops ).
11. No Greek bishops to be allowed in the commonwealth's territory, and none of their bans are to be valid in the Commonwealth.
12 & 20: Defections to the Roman rite and transformation of Eastern churches ito Latin-rite ones is forbidden
21. Colleges and brotherhoods, should they join the Unia, are to be subject to the bishops.
26. "Some of ours" have gone to Greece to report [on us] in order to be appointed to posts "superior to ours". Let the King of Poland prevent their re-entry into his domains.


[Caps are mine]

Uniate historians have claimed that this document had a theological character. But the only theology here relates to the FILIOQUE and Purgatory, and on both issues the Bishops meekly agree to accept whatever the pope decides. Yet even this petition did not receive a proper response from the Vatican. After vainly waiting for it in Rome, the bishops were simply brought before the pope, were handed the Latin texts of the Latin episcopal oath, which they were made to pronounce WHILE KNEELING BEFORE THE POPE.
Then, after receiting the Creed WITH THE FILIOQUE, they were reconsecrated by the pope AS ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS pure and simple. The confession of faith included in the oath AFFIRMED THAT ONLY THE ROMAN CHURCH POSSESSED THE FULLNESS OF TRUTH, AND THAT THEY ACCEPT ALL THE TRADITIONS, RITES, AND SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. Only a month later, in January 1596, the pope magnanimously handed the bishops a short statute for the Uniate Church, permitting it to retain those of their traditions and rites WHICH DID NOT CONTRADICT THE TEACHINGS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. ALL THE OTHER DEMANDS MADE IN THE TWO MEMORANDA - SUCH AS AUTOMONY, THE ELECTION OF BISHOPS, ETC. - WERE TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE POPE. Ipati and Krill then returned to the Commonwealth as bishops of the eastern rite, but with no guarantee that that rite would be respected or retained.

In fact, the laity, the parish clergy, and particularly the brotherhoods refused to accept the union with Rome. The protest movement developed and spread quickly, joined at first by a single bishop, Gideon (Boloban) of Livov. The King gave in to these pressures and authorized the convening of a local council OF THOSE BISHOPS, CLERGY, AND LAITY OF THE ROMAN AND GREEK CHURCH WHO ACCEPTED THE PAPACY - i.e., THOSE WHO DID NOT ACCEPT THE COUNCIL WERE NOT INVITED.

The council met in the city of Brest on October 6, 1596. In order to prevent a parallel Orthodox council in any of the numerious Orthodox churches in the city, THE METROPOLITAN OF KIEV SEALED ALL ORTHODOX CHURCHES ON THE DAY BEFORE THE COUNCIL WAS TO BEGIN, EXCEPT FOR THE CATHEDRAL WHERE THE COUNCIL WAS TO TAKE PLACE. The Orthodox, nevertheless, converged on Brest as well, with Prince Ostrozhskii and his private army at the head. Failing to find an open church, and after waiting in vain for an invitation from the Uniates, they accepted an offer of a Protestant church school hall for a separate Orthodox Council. The Uniate Council passed a resolution excommunicating all the Orthodox clergy and laity participating in the Orthodox Council. The Orthodox in turn suspended all the clergy and lay participants in the Uniate Council and addressed a petition to the King, asking him to deprive "the traitors" of their dioceses and parishes. But the King decided otherwise: his edict of October 15 legalized only those Byzantine-rite Christians who joined the Unia; IT DECREED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH NULL AND VOID AND ALL IT'S CLERGY EXCOMMUNCATED; WHILE CONTINUING MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE.

...and that is the long version... but much better...

"Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings," (Jer 23:1-3)

[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear Orthoman,

What you have written is true, I do not doubt it one iota.

I think it is good that Eastern Catholics can re-examine the Unia and its history, along with its dark sides.

At the same time, even Orthodox bishops in Ukraine in this century declared that the Eastern Catholic Church there exercised a positive role vis a vis the protection of the people of Western Ukraine from cultural/national extinction, as an example.

A Russian Orthodox priest of the Patriarchal parishes once interrupted me, who was going on and on (I know you may find that hard to believe), and told me not to be too hard on the Unia.

He said that God allowed it to come about and that God has His own plans for it.

I told him that I believed that we would be united again, but in God's way not ours.

We then embraced, I kissed his hand and he kissed mine.

I left in tears, saying the Jesus Prayer.

Alex

OrthoMan,

I doubt that the Pope "reconsecrated" any bishops, considering in part what I remember Stuart Koehl mentioning, that they got an Orthodox bishop in Transylvania to consecrate a bishop for the Uniates there in the 17th century (because they didn't want Latins to dress in Byzantine drag and do it).

Rome has almost universally recognized the Orthodox episcopacy.

anastasios

OrthoMan,

Another thing you fail to recognize is the fact that Eastern clergy in the are at the time were uneducated and being swallowed up by the Latins in full force.

Uniatism prevented fullscale conversion of Orthodox to the Latin rite.

Again, I am not into Uniatism these days and would like to see the Eastern Churches repatriated to their mother churches (how that would be done I have not the slightest clue, but I am not for individual conversions back and forth). But to make it out like the Jesuits "stole" Orthodox is not right--it is much more complex, and was often voluntary in order to retain the Byzantine rite.

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

But, apart from all that, don't you just LOVE Orthoman?

Who else would go to all that trouble to show us the error of our historical ways?

I know I wouldn't!

He is great, I tell you.

Alex

Alex,

Another reason the book I mentioned above may appeal to you is a chapter it has titled "The Anglican Experiment". This chapter covers a very amazing coorespondence between Constantinople and the Church of England in which the Anglicans were ready to acknowledge and change over to the Orthodox cycles of services (prayers, liturgies, style), vestments, be ordained(!), remove the filioque, ect. ect.

They were willing to do everything EXCEPT they could not agree about praying to "dead" Saints, and they could not agree on the veneration of icons.

The coorespondence lasted over twenty years but was in the form of only 2 or 3 letters, it just took so darn long to get a letter back and forth. Today the dialog would have lasted about a month.

The Holy Fathers could not do anything but be clear and confess the faith and ended by telling the Anglicans that if they cannot agree to the Will of God then they should go "their own way".

The Anglicans always dealt with the Orthodox through an "unoffical" arm of thier organization so when the talks finally terminated the "offical" arm "found out" and said everything was void anyway - plausible deniability.

I have been very cursory with my posts lateley as I have been ill, sorry.

Dear OrthodoxyorDeath,

Sorry to hear of your illness!

I was hit with an ear infection that blocked my hearing for a month.

I don't know what you have, but vegetable juices are the best in dealing with almost anything, plenty of other fluids, sleep and not too much time on forums like this one . . .

The Anglicans had a problem with the invocation of Saints until the beginning of the 20th century when the High Church Anglicans accepted it along with the icons. There are, of course, Anglicans who are Protestant and many of them are.

The Anglicans always had an affinity for Orthodoxy, given that their "Golden Age" was in the time of the Greek Archbishop of Canterbury, St Theodore of Tarsus and their love for Greece in so many ways.

God bless and bring you a speedy recovery!

Alex