Hi everyone,
I am new on here, so forgive me if I make some mistakes.
But I have a question, what exactly is the Uniate church??? and how did it evolve???

Thanks.

Welcome, Hirstodoulos!

The term "Uniate" originally meant "Orthodox united to Rome" and was coined when various Orthodox Churches entered into full communion in 1595, 1646 and 1724 with Rome. Sadly, this severed their communion with the rest of Orthodoxy. This separation is very painful and we pray that the separation between East and West be healed quickly.

Today these Churches are know as the "Greek Catholic" or "Byzantine Catholic" Churches and are called to be as Orthodox in theology and liturgy as is possible while retaining full communion with Rome. Many Orthodox will dispute that this is possible. And, to be fair, we have not always been true to ourselves.

Others can fill in the details but please note that in recent years the term "uniate" has become a pejorative.

Admin

On the global scene, there is nothing which could sensibly be called the Uniate Church. People who for one reason or another do not care for the Eastern Catholics tend to call Eastern Catholics "Uniates", but very few Eastern Catholics will voluntarily use that term with reference to themselves.

By analogy, one could hypothetically use this term in reference to such phenomena as Western Rite Orthodoxy, parishes, monasteries, clergy and faithful who maintain the pre-Nikonian liturgical tradition but are part of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate or Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), but these communities also react negatively to the application of this term to themselves. One might also apply it to the parishes which are part of the Roman Catholic Church but are permitted to use some elements of the Anglican liturgical tradition (this is kept under extraordinarily tight control), but in practice they do not seem to use this term - or, for that matter, one could use this term in reference to Roman Catholic communities which have become Anglican.

Aside from the habit everyone has of taking umbrage when this term is applied to oneself, there is also the problem that the term has no agreed definition. So it's both more polite and more practical to specify whom or what one wishes to discuss.

Fr. Serge

it is a pejorative expression in my opinion, one that was tossed in my direction by an OCA (a convert from Protestantism, by the way). I had once, about twenty years ago, been blamed for the Council Of Florence by a Greek Orthodox lady.getting rid of the "U" word is long overdue. how about Eastern Christians in communion with Rome, lengthy to be sure,but I am certain that it avoids the "political correctness" thing.
Much Love,
Jonn

Dear Friends,

This also depends on the context. Our ancestors also called themselves "Greco-Uniates" - the "benefit" of this name is that it didn't tend to make our ancestors' identity "flow directly into" that of the Latin Church (which some have said is largely responsible for the tempo of Latinization among us).

The term is used by Old Rite Orthodox (or was) and they were called "Edinovertsi" or "United Believers."

In my mother's family in Roumania, that term wasn't offensive at all, but I don't believe it is used there any longer, except by those who truly do want to give offense to Greek-Catholics.

Perhaps the originator of this thread could identify the source that first used the term "uniate" that he came across?

Alex

OK, let me understand this.
these are people who used to be Orthodox (as I am). And became Roman Catholics? If they became RC willingly why not just become RC all the way? you know Roman mass and all???
I guess I am more interested on finding out how this denomination evolved, and what their beleif structure is. Do they accept the supremecy of the pope? are their priests allowed to get married??? etc...
Forgive me, I did not mean to offend anyone. I just am looking for some info. I have come across a few in my neck of the woods and was just interested in learning.
I have some questions on ' Eastern Catholic' theological stands on the ' Filioque', Immaculate conception, do they accept all the Apostolic Canons??? things like that.

thaks.

Friend,

I was a Melkite Greek Catholic for 12 years before becoming Orthodox. I was raised Baptist. I don't think that you will get any single answer to your questions. There are a variety of perspectives within the eastern Catholic churches (as there are a variety of perspectives within the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Churches). I can tell you a little about the Melkite Church based on the views of two Melkite Bishops.

At one end was his grace, Bishop John Elya; a truly holy man. His views are the most "latinized" among the Melkites I know. He holds to papal supremacy and infallibility, to indulgences, to the immaculate conception, etc. You can read his answers to various questions, http:www.melkite.net. At the other end, is his grace, Archbishop Elias Zoghby, who denied papal supremacy and infallibility, has called Vatican I a pseudo-council, has questioned the rigorous views on divorce/remarriage and contraception, and has said that he believes all that Orthodoxy teaches and is in communion with the Pope within the limits of papal authority recognized in the first millenium. I was always sympathetic with Archbishop Zoghby, so much so, that I eventually came to realize that I couldn't truly be in communion with Rome, because Rome did not recognize those limits of the early Church. I think that you will find among eastern Catholics, perspectives that fall along a continuum between the two perspectives I've listed.

Joe

Dear Hristodoulos,

Well, we Eastern Catholics believe we are FULLY Orthodox since we do commemorate the Pope as was done during the first millennium of the Church - as the Administrator here says, "Communion with Rome is the Crown of Orthodoxy." (Believe it or not . . .).

St Peter went throughout the East, consecrating bishops and founding Churches. He is more of an Eastern saint than a Western one, since Rome in the West is the only place he set up a church, as I understand, and, of course, was martyred there.

But we simply feel RC's are wrong in appropriating him all to themselves. It is better that the See of Rome claim primacy on the basis of St Peter being there.

If the East were to follow a rule like that, we'd have all kinds of primatial sees based on St Peter beginning with Antioch etc.

When it comes to the doctrines that RC's confess, we EC's let them have their way, as long as they don't impose their narrow scholastic ideas on us (see the long-winded thread on the Filioque - the recent one).

As for the Immaculate Conception, we try not gloating about the fact that the East affirms the total holiness of the Most Holy Theotokos and never even considered that issue a problem.

It is difficult to be in communion with RC's, we must admit. They can be arrogant, at times, and think that their way of doing "church" was the way it was done from the very beginning.

If you challenge them on any of this, they will get their Latin backs up against the wall, demand references, pretend they don't see them when you do, accuse you of implying tendentious interpretations and denying reality, then they will come close to calling you a heretic/schismatic while all the time affirming that "our unity is almost complete!"

This is why I would never leave the EC Church for Orthodoxy.

You Orthodox have it easy! It is a much greater asceticism to try and live with our cantankerous RC brothers and sisters, having to put up with them in all meekness and poverty of spirit, without resentment and to be always fighting the urge to just go away so as not to have to listen to them . . .

That is the truly Orthodox ascetical way, as I read the Philokalia . . .

Any other questions?

Alex

To me it means actively promoting or accepting the incorporation of elements of another particular churches patrimony in to the life of ones own church at the cost of ones own traditions. I think the main negative connotation is that it essentially infers that there is an inferiority complex that fosters the �uniatism�.

Sometimes the effects of these changes (either through the presence or absence of certain things) is readily apparent, and at other times is not. In my experience one of the most telling differences was fairly subtle and had to do with the clergy � how they act, what they say and how the faithful interact with them. Aside from the more obvious things, that is where I perceived the most significant presence of this phenomenon.

Dear AMM,

You've certainly raised an important issue!

I also noticed the "uniate" mentality, as you have so aptly described, among some Western Rite Orthodox I met with during their conference in Toronto some years back.

I think it is a function of sociology more than of ecclesiology (although it could be both).

EC's are definitely a minority, we ARE cut off from Orthodoxy, from whence we came, and that is why there are always two streams of "religious consciousness" among us - one tending toward the West and one toward the East.

Both sides are often suspicious of one another - both believe the other is out to 'bring them over' to their side. Again, I saw the same thing occur among Western Orthodox who, during the conference, launched several formal complaints regarding Eastern Orthodox who try to bring Western Riters over to their parishes and/or who tell them that the "Western Rite is only temporary" to get Western converts to Orthodoxy used to the Eastern traditions before being formally and completely "swallowed up" by the Eastern Rite.

However, even Orthodox admit those whom they formerly denigrated as "uniates" have truly become "Orthodox in communion with Rome" like our Administrator, Irish Melkite and Anhelyna (did you see her link to Fr. Whiteford's website - amazing no? ;))

Alex

They're in a similar position.


It's rather useless to pass judgment on anyone in this regard. All they could really say is by their standard, it is a different type of being Orthodox. Just the other day I read a conversation between Anglicans and Catholics that very much reminded of this.

Hristodulos asks:


This is rather a challenge. Let's see what I can do. In many cases these are not "people who used to be Orthodox. The Maronites (one of the larger Eastern Catholic Churches; the Maronites are based in Lebanon but have a substantial presence in the USA) have always been Maronites. The Italo-Greek Church remained in communion with Rome through thick and thin (and at times it was pretty thin!). The real point is that there is no one denomination which can be called "the Uniate Church"; each of the Eastern Catholic Churches has her own history - and that history is often disputed.

But to continue.

Do they accept the supremacy of the Pope? Depends what you mean by "the supremacy of the Pope". That would be a lengthy discussion.

Are their priests allowed to get married? No, of course not (Greek Orthodox priests are not allowed to get married either), but most of these Churches are willing to permit the ordination of a married man to the priesthood under certain conditions (for instance: it must be a first marriage both for the priest and for his wife).

How do they stand on the Filioque? The majority don't use it; some do use it. Few people would claim to understand the theological question fully.

How do they stand on the Immaculate Conception? Again, that is a complicated discussion. Rome takes the view that the understanding of the matter found on the Orthodox service-books is sufficient.

Do they accept all the Apostolic Canons? To the best of my knowledge, yes, but I am not a canonist.

Fr. Serge

Dear Joe,

Having read Archbishop Zoghby's book, "We Are All Schismatics", and as someone looking into the Holy Orthodoxy, (I am currently Ruthenian Catholic), I always wondered why the Archbishop remained in communion with Rome. I know he talks about it in the book, but he is somewhat vague. What do you think?

Recluse

Archbishop Zoghby is Guru! I read his book which was a manifesto on behalf of Eastern Catholics everywhere, and may I say, he was even more daring then I would have been had I been in his position. I don't recall the name of the book, but I have it at home in my library. another text to look at is one on the Petrine Ministry, which is a collection of speeches by Roman and Orthodox theologians, I got that through the Theological Book Service of Ligourian. one that got me ticked was one from a Roman that brayed obnoxiously that the Papacy, with its hard rule, as now constituted, is where its at, and if you don't like it TOUGH. the comments at the end of that pre-Cambrian rant noted that the Orthodox were astonished. my, imagine that!
Much Love,
Jonn
Jonn