www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Are we an impediment to reunion?

The contradiction is in your mind. A person can agree with the presentation of facts from history, but not agree with the interpretation given to those facts by an author.

Blessings to you,
Todd

DJS,

Are you actually asserting that the Roman Church has never tried to convert Eastern Orthodox, or that she has never tried to bring parts of the Eastern Orthodox Churches back into communion with her, even if it will divide the Eastern Churches?

Are you actually saying that Rome was not advancing its own particular interests?

Clearly, we won't agree on this issue, and perhaps that is why I am becoming more and more pessimistic about the possibility of communion being restored between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. The attitude of my fellow Catholics remains triumphalistic.

I took this pair of sentences as a comment that the Union of Brest exemplified imperialistic tendencies of Rome. It is an unqualified attack, no sources, no admission of opposing (sourced) ideas, no fuller picture. In effect, then, you write that Roman Imperialism is the epitome of Brest.

In response to my taking exception to this characterization, you make an amazing leap:

Now, frankly, ISTM, that you have some opinions that you feel an urge to launch independent of what is actually happening in the dialog. Whom have I absolved of blame? What have I pretended? And what have I refused?

You ventured an opinion about Brest. I would like to known its basis - since it is at odds, as we agree with other, scholarly opinion. The fact that I suspect that you are on thin ice in characterizing it solely - with no qualification at all - as Roman imperialism does not mean I am pretending, absolving. And the only thing I am refusing is your one-dimensional, inventive view of Brest.

I think that history is intersting, and that within it there is a lot of guilt and error.
If I were interested in making a tally about blame, the need for repentence, and amends, and who needs to be accountable for what, however, I would admit to being far less concerned about the smugness and interference of the Latins - past and residually present - as the trecherous, murderous machinations of the Orthodox against us. But in reality I am interested in no such things. There is nothing that I can recall from my own life for which to blame any Catholic or Orthodox. At any rate I am a little busy reprenting for my own blame-worthy failures.

I can understand an interest in correcting errors of fact. But I don't see what is to be gained such strict scrutiny on the avoidance of seeming to absolve others or to quit with the blaming.

What is theology behind this?

Thanks for finally beginning to acknoweledge that there is that, notwithstanding the past, there is cause for optimism in the present.


ps what is the history "dividing ... tearing them apart" for example in subcarpathia?

Thanks for asking. No, I am not - as I noted above. I was objecting to your unqualified characterization of Brest. The fact that these actions are part of the history does not make elevate them to being all that needs to be said of the history.

You agreed to the accuracy of the "historical presentation of the situation". I wouldn't have guessed that that meant only "facts" not "interpretation". Nevertheless your interpretation still seems at odds with the facts. What are your sources?

I am still trying to figure out what you are thinking. You have a neat idea of triumphalism - at least as far as I can discern it from this thread. If one doesn't see Roman imperialism as the epitome of the Union of Brest, then one is being triumphalistic? :rolleyes: And if perchance you think that Latin bashing is the sine qua non of Greek Catholicism, all that I can tell you is that that just isn't my experience.

Now, for all I know, you may be right that adopting this alternative history might be required for communion between Catholic's and Orthodox, but I rather doubt it. I think that people are more concerned with matters of faith, than theories of historical grievance.

DJS,

Has the Roman Church always honored the Treaty of Brest's statements about the "filioque"?

Blessings to you,
Todd

I never cease to be amazed by what the �latest scholarship� is able to uncover�

Many sources attest to the fact that the Unia was spurred on by the aggressive policies of the Jesuits (who convinced the Vatican losses to the Reformation could be offset in the East) and the desire of the Polish kings to Catholicize the areas they controlled, and to extend that control to Muscovy. It would have gone nowhere without these factors in place.

The majority of the hierarchy in the Polish kingdom did accept the Unia and were advocates of it, undoubtedly for various reasons. It is clear that it was widely unpopular among the laity, and the brotherhoods arose as a defense of Orthodoxy in response to the Unia, not as a precursor to it as the quoted article supposes. There were widespread persecutions led by people like Zygmunt who regarded the Orthodox as heretics, and these in turn fueled the movement to seek the shelter of the brotherhoods and to form a response to the Unia.

Now I think I�ll go read some John Crossan to see what the latest scholarship says about Christ.

Andrew

Share your sources, as Taft shared his!

You really should note, btw, that Taft fully stipulates to some of what you say. But the Polish Kings and Jesuits were intersted in making LATIN catholics out of the Orthodox. It was the idea of establishing GREEK Catholics that was not theirs, but ours.

I am especially intrigued by the often made claim that it was widely unpopular among the laity. How wide is wide? Does this include the paid brotherhoods? This idea seems a little inconsistent with another idea in circulation, that it was done without the knowledge of the laity.

Before Brest.

From what I gather, in particular, from Alex's posts on strong external pressure in Poland to include it, I would say no; I assume that that pressure originated in the local Roman church.

I know also that we (BCC) have at times included the filioque, and we even have used clappers instead of bells on Good Friday . I can't say that I know, however, whether or one could accurately infer from these observations any dishonoring of the Treaty by the Roman church.

(You should also pay attention to the last part of the passage quoted by Taft. )

But really the point of your asking escapes me entirely.

This is exactly my point, the Roman Church aggressively tried to force Eastern Orthodox, both as individuals and as Churches, into communion with the Holy See. We may be reading the same article, but clearly we have a different take on the interpretation of the events.

As far as sources are concerned -- although I thought we were discussing the Taft article -- one of the articles that has influenced my thought was written by Serge Keheler, entitled, "The Church in the Middle," Religion, State and Society 20 (1992): nos. 3 and 4.

But I'm not sure why you are so interested in my sources, since we are discussing the article that you mentioned. Again, don't confuse the recounting of historical events with the interpretation given to those events by an author. The Eastern Orthodox have a very different understanding of what happened as Poland and other Western powers gained temporary hegemony over traditionally Orthodox territories.

In perusing my pdf copy of Fr. Taft's article I've been unable to find the quotation you supplied in your previous post.

Nevertheless, I wanted to disagree with what Fr. Taft said about the Council of Florence:

If the Orthodox had not repudiated Florence, Orthodoxy would have ceased to exist, and the Roman Church would have successfully Latinized the entire East. But thank God that did not happen and the bishops of the East at the Synod of Constantinople (A.D. 1484) repudiated the Florentine decrees.

DJS,

Sorry, I misread your quotation from Rilian as a quotation from Taft.

I will say this, I agree with Rilian and disagree with Taft. Keheler seems to hold that the 1646 union of Uzhhorod was made because of pressure from the Catholic Hungarian kingdom.

I think that Taft's article, which is nowhere near as detailed as Keheler's, gives a simplified view of the situation. Keheler's article is very even handed and points out the precarious situation that Eastern Catholics were put into by the various "unions" with Rome. The "unions" were often made to protect the Orthodox in areas where Catholics had political power. But as the title of his article indicates, the Eastern Catholic Churches became the "Church in the Middle," and Eastern Catholics were often persecuted by both Latins and Orthodox.

Certainly I would not cite Orthodox sources in this instance.

Any of the major histories of the area include details of these affairs because the confessional conflicts were so intertwined with the political vicissitudes of Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy. Three major authors that come to mind are Billington, Pipes and Riasanovsky (I don�t have the updated version of his book that was co-authored with someone else).

This I agree with, going back to the time of Possevino and even up to the time of de Maistre and perhaps beyond. My understanding is the Jesuits viewed the retention of Eastern customs as a provisional concession to the Orthodox hierarchy in the Polish controlled areas with the ultimate goal being full Latinization. Perhaps that is something that explains the history that followed.

To my mind it would be quite consistent to think there would be widespread negative reaction among the populace if they were not a party to what happened. Regardless, my understanding is a large number of the lower clergy stood in opposition to the Union and that the majority of lay Orthodox in the eastern part of the Polish kingdom did as well. I don�t have hard numbers, but I have always seen the term "majority" applied to the lay populace in this regard.

Some brotherhoods did arise before Brest in reaction to the policies of Zygmunt. The movement gained much more momentum after the union though. Ironically this had a positive effect on Orthodoxy because of the intellectual ferment it touched off. The theological academy of Petro Mogila was a direct result.

I will say the Taft article reminds me of what a lot of the �latest scholarship� is about. Start with your conclusion and then find your evidence.

Andrew

Get over it and on with it!
Stephanos I

As far as the relative detail goes, please recall that Taft's "article" is actually a lecture that he gave. Nevertheless, if Keheler implies the notion in the quote, then I'm afraid he's missing some rather crucial details.

I think you mistake "interpretation" with invention of missing facts. What are the details of aggression: how aggressive by standards of the day? and what is the evidence for any claim. That's why sources are important. If you want to go beyond Taft's interpretive remarks and, more importantly his facts, to draw other conclusions, then provide sources so the facts can be checked and understood not to be invention. One pertinent fact is that several Bishops freely backed out of the Union. Considering that the standard of the day was that the religion of the Prince was the religion of the realm, this freedom speaks of an unusal lack of aggression.

Having said that, I will of course agree that there was some level of "coercion" in the broadest sense. There was an advantage seen by the Bishops to make the union. What were the most important factors? Relief from Constantinople? From Latin and Protestant missionaries? From whatever Russia had in mind? The possibility of education in universities? A seat in the Senate? All of the above?

Ah, this is better, IMO. I think you totally wrong, though, in your assessment of the importance of the repudiation of Florence - repudiation done under the Sultan, and by the Czar. I think that in "Ruthenian" lands the decision to go one way or another was more plastic. Ultimately I agree that Greek Catholic solution of the Bishops was to maintain our ways in Catholic countries.

Finally, on page eight of the thread, a entirely new dimension. The history of the Union is acknowledged to includes more than persecution by the Latins. Actually the negative aspects include more than persecutions; included are our own freely made mistakes - which make a topic for discussion that is far more healthy than these moments spent discussion one's victimhood.

You are mistaken, if you think I am a Latin triumphalist, or an Orthodox basher. Of course, balance is required if one goes that route at all. But I am not interested in this route.

The real story of that history is the amazing fact that our forebearers, against all odds, with no power and no resources, a marginalized and backward people, managed to develop and to hold onto something quite beautiful. They had their religion as the core of their lives and expressed it with a remarkable beauty that came from their own rough hands and hearts and voices. That to me is a story far more interesting than whining over victimization and the bearing of grudges.

Andrew, Thanks for some references.
I'll keep an open mind about what their scholarship is about.