www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall How do you answer an Orthodox who says this:

Dear Friends,

I am very ignorant as to all the history behind your Church, so could you, in 'simple' synoptic answers, tell me what you would answer an overly fanatic Orthodox who says:

"Most "Byzantine Catholics" became so under force or at the very least extreme coercion."

Thanks!
Alice

If I were Byz Cath, I would simply say, "well, I wasn't coerced, and I don't know anybody who was coerced, so you'd better just check your sources, Mister!"

Dear Alice,

Actually, in the case of the Union of Brest-Litovsk of 1596, no one was coerced into accepting it.

The bishops acted on their own and in secret before this was proclaimed.

There are those today who say that the people were not asked etc.

And that has to win the biggest award for historical lack of awareness ever!

Who asked the English if they wanted to join King Henry VIII in his schism from Rome?

Did the Lutheran princes poll their vassals before leading them into Lutheranism?

And who ever asked the peoples of Kyivan Rus' if they wanted to receive Christianity?

Did the Chronicles ever mention anything about a referendum?

St Volodymyr gave the order and people just showed up at the river!

And why did St Volodymyr accept Byzantine Christianity? Because, ultimately, his grandmother St Olga did "And if she accepted it, it must have been a good religion."

What the leaders did - the people followed after.

It is true that people did revolt on questions of religion.

But that didn't happen in 1596 or later with the Ruthenian Union.

If anything, as far as we know, when the new Orthodox in communion with Rome were asked why the Pope was now being commemorated in their churches, the answer invariably was, "It must mean the Pope has joined our Orthodox Church!"

Alex

Weren't most of the early Orthodox people who settled in the US, Byzantine Catholics? So I don't know how Byzantine Catholics could coerced?

There were political factors involved in the Union including pressure from Poland for the bishops to sign the Union. Of course it was but one of the factors but pressure was exerted. But today is quite different from 1596. The Byzantine Catholics have established viable communities and have the the right to exist and thrive. No better Orthodox source then His Grace, Bishop +Kallistos (Ware) has defended the Greek Catholic right to exist in the revised version of "The Orthodox Church" in discussing the Soviet Suppression of 1946.

Many of these Byzantine Catholics returned to the Orthodox Church over the inability of Latin bishops (the famous case of Archbishop Ireland of Minneapolis and St Alexis Toth) to accept their traditions and prerogatives especially married clergy which had always been respected under the Austro-Hungarian Empire and even to recognize that they were Catholic priests.

Dear Alice,

I think Alex offers a very sensible approach. Historically there were points when individuals had little choice. Honestly this is what happened eventually in some places after the Union. There were not various churches to chose from, in some places there was resistence, not in all.

The governments of Poland-Lithuania and Hungary were RC, it was better to be Catholic than Orthodox in those realms (very broad implications). If the local Orthodox parish became GC what was the option? Remember we are talking about times before automobiles and roads to accomodate them. The maxim "cujus regio, ejus religio" does not necessarily mean force.

However, today this is not the case in most places. Most of us in the USA today have ancestors who came here in seach of a better life yet we all chose to remain here, we are not coerced. Certainly many BCs have gone elsewhere over time. There are many factors such as family, etc., yet most of us today are free.

And if your acquaintance believes this, he should be moved to prayer as anyone forced has not exercised free choice and is not usually morally culpable. I am curious, what is his point?

Tony

Dear Brian,

Yes, social pressure was prominent too.

But not all Orthodox responded to it by becoming Uniate - one could be Latinized as an Orthodox without being an Eastern or Roman Catholic.

And under RC colonial states, being a Greek Catholic was often "not enough."

Relatives of mine who lived under Poland found they could get a job only if they changed their baptismal certificate to read "Roman Catholic."

Alex

Dear Tony,

Well said!

And I don't just mean the part about my approach being sensible . . .

But for which compliment I thank you anyway!

Alex

Dear Alice,

I guess I would just let the reality/history check pass for a minute and respond to the query with, "And if they were coerced, so what? How does that impact our current relationship, dialogues, and attempts to make sure that all who believe the same way are unified in Christ?"

The Latins weren't coerced into being Latins, but we seek the same with them.

I'm am very realistic and don't see union soon (I myself pointing to three soteriological/ecclesiological dogmatic barriers), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't send our learned Orthodox to pray and discuss these things with the Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, and Oriental Orthodox.

In unity through Christ,
Andrew