The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Regf2, SomeInquirer, Wee Shuggie, Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022
5,881 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 288 guests, and 22 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Interesting reading but highly inaccurate, and using terms which no one is likely to understand these days. How many people would realize that "Lipovans" are Old-Ritualists and that "Fontina (sic) Alba" is Bielaia Krinitsa, the seat of the Old-Ritualist Metropolitan, with two large monasteries until the Soviets closed the monasteries?

Entertaining, but don't depend on it for information.

Fr Serge

Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,881
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,881
Only those who run everything by saint Google the great, the fantastic. biggrin

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
I think I may be the source of the confusion. When I said

Quote
I also believe that after the Union it became illegal within that section of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to be an Orthodox Christian.
I made a chronological leap. At the time of union I believe the area in question would have been part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. That may be the source of the ban of which Mr. Magosci speaks. The Rusyn Orthodox nobility and populace were under the constant pressure of Polonization. The area I believe would not have come in to the control of the Habsburgs until later, after the partition of Poland (�she weeps but she takes� as Frederick the Great said of Maria Theresa). The same for Bukovina, which was taken later on from the Ottomans.

Now, regarding the lands ruled and acquired by the Austrian Empire, the Hungarian Nobility and later the dual monarchy � I think there is a mixed record. Wikipedia for instance says this of Transylvania after it left Ottoman hands, was ruled by the Hungarians and then the Habsburgs:
Quote
The Calvinist magnate of Bihar county Stephen Bocskai managed to obtain, through the Peace of Vienna (June 23, 1606), religious liberty and political autonomy, the restoration of all confiscated estates, the repeal of all "unrighteous" judgments, and a complete retroactive amnesty for all Hungarians in Royal Hungary, as well as his own recognition as independent sovereign prince of an enlarged Transylvania. Under Bocskai's successors Transylvania passed through a period of flourishment both for the religious movements and for the arts and culture. It was one of the few European countries where Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans, and Unitarians lived in mutual tolerance, but Orthodox Romanians were denied equal rights.

Austrian rule

After the defeat of the Ottomans at the Battle of Vienna in 1683, the Habsburgs gradually began to impose their rule on the formerly autonomous Transylvania. Apart from strengthening the central government and administration, the Habsburgs also promoted the Roman Catholic Church, both as a uniting force and also as an instrument to reduce the influence of the Protestant nobility. In addition, they tried to persuade Orthodox clergymen to join the Greek Catholic Church. From 1711 onward the princes of Transylvania were replaced with Austrian governors and in 1765 Transylvania was declared a grand principality.
I think that probably encapsulates the situation. Magyarization was overtly anti Orthodox, while the Habsburgs I think for the most part preferred to entice (although one could not legally be Protestant in Bohemia). That of course at times and in places could change. I believe the 20th century Hieromartyr Maxim Sandovich was arrested before the start of WWI for at least one charge of �Orthodox Missionary Activity�. I do not think at any time in the Austro-Hungarian Empire was it allowed for a non Orthodox person to convert, even through marriage. His fate was a precursor to the horrors of Talerhof, at which both Orthodox and Eastern Catholics suffered together.

Andrew

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Excuse me, but it was certainly legal in the Austrian Empire for a Catholic to become an Orthodox - the catch was that if a parish did this, the parish property remained with the Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, it would be worth-while to compare the treatment of the Old-Ritualists in the Austrian Empire with the treatment of the Old-Ritualists in the Russian Empire.

Blessed Charles of Austria, pray for us!

Fr. Serge

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315
Likes: 21
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315
Likes: 21
Bless, Father Serge!

It so very good to see that there is something of the monarchist (Habsburg and possibly the movement to declare a King in Eire?) in you! smile

I too am a supporter of the Cause of Blessed Charles of Austria!

Alex

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
My understanding based on what I've read was that one could not convert to Orthodoxy, and that Orthodox Christians lived with serious restrictions placed on them at certain times. I believe there may be some explication of this in what Wikipedia says about early modern Romania, again in relation to the status of Orthodox Christians in Transylvania

Quote
The Habsburgs

In 1683 Jan Sobieski's Polish army crushed an Ottoman army besieging Vienna, and Christian forces soon began the slow process of driving the Turks from Europe. In 1688 the Transylvanian Diet renounced Ottoman suzerainty and accepted Austrian protection. Eleven years later, the Porte officially recognized Austria's sovereignty over the region. Although an imperial decree reaffirmed the privileges of Transylvania's nobles and the status of its four "recognized" religions, Vienna assumed direct control of the region and the emperor planned annexation.[5]

The Romanian majority remained segregated from Transylvania's political life and almost totally enserfed; Romanians were forbidden to marry, relocate, or practice a trade without the permission of their landlords. Besides oppressive feudal exactions, the Orthodox Romanians had to pay tithes to the Roman Catholic or Protestant church, depending on their landlords' faith. Barred from collecting tithes, Orthodox priests lived in penury, and many labored as peasants to survive.[5]

Under Habsburg rule, Roman Catholics dominated Transylvania's more numerous Protestants, and Vienna mounted a campaign to convert the region to Catholicism. The imperial army delivered many Protestant churches to Catholic hands, and anyone who broke from the Catholic church was liable to receive a public flogging. The Habsburgs also attempted to persuade Orthodox clergymen to join the Uniate Church, which retained Orthodox rituals and customs but accepted four key points of Catholic doctrine and acknowledged papal authority.[5]

Jesuits dispatched to Transylvania promised Orthodox clergymen heightened social status, exemption from serfdom, and material benefits. In 1699 and 1701, Emperor Leopold I decreed Transylvania's Orthodox Church to be one with the Roman Catholic Church; the Habsburgs, however, never intended to make the Uniate Church a "received" religion and did not enforce portions of Leopold's decrees that gave Uniate clergymen the same rights as Catholic priests. Despite an Orthodox synod's acceptance of union, many Orthodox clergy and faithful rejected it.[5]

In 1711, having suppressed an eight-year rebellion of Hungarian nobles and serfs, the Austrian empire consolidated its hold on Transylvania, and within several decades the Uniate Church proved a seminal force in the rise of Romanian nationalism. Uniate clergymen had influence in Vienna; and Uniate priests schooled in Rome and Vienna acquainted the Romanians with Western ideas, wrote histories tracing their Daco-Roman origins, adapted the Latin alphabet to the Romanian language (see Romanian alphabet), and published Romanian grammars and prayer books. The Uniate Church's seat at Blaj, in southern Transylvania, became a center of Romanian culture.[5]

The Romanians' struggle for equality in Transylvania found its first formidable advocate in a Uniate bishop, Inocenţiu Micu Klein, who, with imperial backing, became a baron and a member of the Transylvanian Diet. From 1729 to 1744, Klein submitted petitions to Vienna on the Romanians' behalf and stubbornly took the floor of Transylvania's Diet to declare that Romanians were the inferiors of no other Transylvanian people, that they contributed more taxes and soldiers to the state than any of Transylvania's "nations", and that only enmity and outdated privileges caused their political exclusion and economic exploitation. Klein fought to gain Uniate clergymen the same rights as Catholic priests, reduce feudal obligations, restore expropriated land to Romanian peasants, and bar feudal lords from depriving Romanian children of an education. The bishop's words fell on deaf ears in Vienna; and Hungarian, German, and Szekler deputies, jealously clinging to their noble privileges, openly mocked the bishop and snarled that the Romanians were to the Transylvanian body politic what "moths are to clothing". Klein eventually fled to Rome where his appeals to the pope proved fruitless. He died in a Roman monastery in 1768. Klein's struggle, however, stirred both Uniate and Orthodox Romanians to demand equal standing. In 1762 an imperial decree established an organization for Transylvania's Orthodox community, but the empire still denied Orthodoxy equality even with the Uniate Church.[5]
I grant you, things improved a great deal under Joseph II.

Andrew

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 220
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 220
This is very interesting and very confusing.

1. Would it be an over-simplification to say that the Greek Catholic Church emerged out of the chaos of policitcs and power games of Protestantism?

2. Why are forum members using the term Uniate? In Europe it's Greek Catholic, and in the U.S. it's Byzantine Catholic.

3. This goes back to a long-standing question: should the Byzantine Catholics go back to the Orthodox Church from which they came or should they allow the latinzations to completely make them Roman Catholics?

It's thought provocative.

WHAT WOULD CHRIST SAY TO ALL THIS?
(I think He'd either cry or laugh.)

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Dear Alex,
The Blessing of the Lord!

Put it this way: I have never met anyone at all who would argue that Hitler and Stalin were an improvement on Franz Joseph!

There are several claimants to the long-vacant High Kingship of Ireland. One of them is the King of Bavaria - but because of the succession laws here, his heir (in regard to this claim) is none other than the Prince of Liechtenstien - who is, of course, a Hapsburg.

Боже, буди Покровитель . . .

Fr Serge

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5