www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West When dis Eastern Churches reunite with Rome

Dear Neil,

I think we do agree on this point. Churches were incorporated in odd wys in the early days of immigration. Absent priests, let alone a bishop, faithful would pool resources to buy or build a church building, in the hopes of recruiting a priest. Deeds to the buildings were often held under the name of trustees, rather than any local, or non-local ordinary. As such trustees went so may have gone the property unless some issue of original intent could be elucidted. (See e.g., "Clash of Titans")

The OCA, uniquely among Orthodox I think, still has the idea of local ownership by trustees in its by-laws as a vestige of this time.

We were not talking about the ambiguous situation between 1054 and Florence (Peremyshl, e.g., appears to have been in communion with Rome during that time). The situation after the fall of Constantinople was also somewhat ambiguous, with Kiev in communion with both Rome and Constantinople until after 1500. I agree that these issues were not of particular consequence, and may even have been largely unknown to the rank and file.

The question is about the Union. Brest had been being worked on for several years by the bishops. If their work was secret, it was a badly kept secret, which included letters to the clergy. Organized opposition from the nobles, brotherhoods, some clergy was there from the beginning. The formal Synod of union was held simultaneously with another synod of anti-union. Metropolitan Balaban switched from being pro-Union (and an early proponent at that) to anti. The Union that was received was solemnly and openly proclaimed. And tumult ensued. Within a few decades there were martyrs on both sides, and parallel Orthodox jurisdictions were permitted. Apart from this short interval people had some choice (something, btw, never permitted by Czarinas, Czars, or Commisars.)

The break of communion with Constantinople is less clear. If joint communion was held from Florence until after 1500, did the Union lead to automatic excommunication?

It is because of this volatile climate that I maintain that charge of hierarchal secret deals is hard to sustain. It's not a secret, when everyone knows it. And given the turmoil, who wouldn't. In any case, such tendentious suggestions (like charges of "pressuring") should be made only with factual support, IMO.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12532b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/florovsky_ways_chap2.html

Agreed.

Concerning the events leading up to the Union of Brest, the Patriarch himslf appears to have been fully aware of what was going on. According to the accounts I remember reading, it was a very public affair.

djs and Coalesco,

I disagree with you both. Although my sources are not as easily accesible as web sites . . .

Concerning the initial knowledge of the peasants, the Union of Uzhorod is described as " . . . no more than a 'grain of mustard seed,' modest, simple, almost hidden, without any ceremony or solemnity." 1

If it was "almost hidden" I should think that some of the more rural churches wouldn't have been as aware as you make it seem.

Concerning coercion, a much easier case is made. Before the unions, Orthodox priests were considered by their Catholic masters as mere peasants, lacking in eduation and educational opportunities. The clergy was unrecognized and they were not covered by the same protections of law as the Latin clergy, which they were granted through union. 2

This was a long standing position of the Catholic political entities and, one could argue, of the Roman Chruch itself (consider, for instance, the expulsion of St. Methodius' followers). I'm not going to enter into a litany of well known pressures put on the Orthodox faithful to convert to argue with you that there was no coersion. Do you think that the bishops did not consider the benefits of being "Roman"? Do you think that these pressures put on the faithful were not felt at all by the hierarchy?

Further, djs, your own examples of martyrdom at least shows some sign of pressure, unless you believe that the threat of death is not any sort of pressure whatsoever.

Certainly there were people who believed in the unions. But I find it impossible to conclude that, when the laws of a nation are formed to exclude all groups but Catholics, there was no pressure felt by the hierarchy. I also find it difficult to conclude that the priests and even, dare I say, all the bishops that accepted the union, did so happily and without reservation. I suspect that in their socio-political environments that some of the priests and people, threatened with discrimination and, at times, death, just wanted to survive and went along to get along.

If I had time to dig into my library (and find all my books stored in boxes in may attic), I would review what Magosci said about these events. I seem to recall his history reading differently than that of newadvent.org. Not that the information is incorrect, I just seem to recall that the events were a lot more complex than those reviewed by the web page.

Before I hear complaints and demands for more information, my wife is due in a week and I'm too busy preparing for a more important event than to look for more information now.

You can take my opinion for whatever you like.

1. Lacko, S.J., The Union of Uzhorod, page 100.
2. Lacko, S.J., The Union of Uzhorod, pages
45-46

Relax, you seem edgy.

All is Mercy and Grace

Congratulations on your next child

You and your family have my prayers
Michael

djs and Coalesco,

I apologize for being a bit . . . moody.

I stand corrected that the issues were quite public. I will stick to my theory that some of the faithful were not aware of the side their particular priest was taking on the issues.

I guess I was trying to give the general population too much or too little credit, depending on how you feel about the unions.

Cizinec, I think we don't really disagree on much.

I think that the Bishops were "open" in Brest.
How that openess was played out at the grass roots level is unclear. Similarly, I have no idea about the openess of the process, in the 1500's, by which the Florentine communion with Rome was finally severed in Kyiv. And in Mukachevo, while it is clear that Bishop Tarasovich was pro-union, he was hamstrung and never, AFAIK, made the union himself.

As far as "pressure" goes, I was refering to your remark about pressure to sign. In Brest the main pressure was to go RC, and in Mukachevo the pressure was against union. It was not until Budapest finally defeated the local landowners that this pressure was lifted.

The Union of Brest included a stipulation that the Union would be enforced by the state; a parallel Orthodox jurisdiction would be outlawed and the brotherhoods suppressed. That's where the pressure (leading to martyrs) came from - after the signing. And within 35 years, that article of the Union was abandoned. There were still disincentives to be O, but it's more than a little unfair to attach enormous significance to them. First, the accomodations made at that time represented something unprecedented in the realm of pluralism. Second, by contrast, everytime a regime from an Orthodox country took a part of these territories, there was zero-tolerance for EC's: liquidation of the church, imprisonment (or murder) of uncooperative hierarchs and of great portions of the clergy. This policy continued through into ages marked elsewhere by religious pluralism.