www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Union of Uzhorod

Some one requested this a while back:

By the grace of Christ, elected most holy Father and universal Patriarch.

We priests of the holy Greek rite, inhabitants of the noble and apostolic kingdom of Hungary, situated through the Districts specified with our signature, realizing that the sacrament of the king is to be hidden, but that the works of God are to be revealed and to be shown to all peoples more clearly than the sun, seeing that they are such that through them the ineffable goodness and clemency of our most merciful God towards rational creatures is wont to be made manifest. According to this principle and this angelic rule we declare to Your Holiness, we preach and we lift up to the heavens with titles of most devout praise before the whole world. What is that [that we declare]? The grace of our God and Savior freely poured out among us, by which working in us and foretelling most lovingly the salvation of our souls, we, having abandoned and driven from our hearts the Greek schism, are restored and affianced again to the Immaculate Virgin Spouse of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is the holy Roman Church, hitherto abominated by us and held in hatred without any cause. This same return of ours, indeed, was accomplished in the year of salvation one thousand six hundred and forty-six, on the twenty-fourth day of April, while Ferdinand III the most sacred Emperor of the Romans was ruling, in the Latin castle-church of Uzhorod situated on the estate of the most illustrious Count George of Humenne, in this fashion:

The bishop of Munkach, Basil Tarasovic, who has already departed this life, when following the party that was both schismatical as well as heretical, he had broken the bond of holy Union, publicly abandoned the Catholic Church. The venerable father in Christ, George Jakusic, bishop of Eger, now resting in Christ, considering this, having with him the Reverend Basilian fathers summoned for this purpose, Father Peter Parthenius, who today is our bishop, and father Gabriel Kosovicky, most courteously invited us by letter to Uzhorod, and after seasonable discourse from the aforesaid Fathers about holy Union, he accomplished, with the Holy Spirit disposing us for it, what he purposed, and appointed the day dedicated to St. George the Martyr for making the profession of faith.

On that day we sixty-three priests came together and followed the aforementioned most Reverend Bishop of Eger to the church named above. So after the enactment of the mystery of the bloodless sacrifice performed in our Ruthenian tongue, and after sacramental expiation of their sins by some of the priests, we pronounced the profession of faith in an audible voice according to the prescribed formula, namely:

We believe all and everything that our Holy Mother the Roman Church bids us believe. We acknowledge that the most holy Father Innocent X is the universal Pastor of the Church of Christ and our Pastor, and we with our successor�s desire and wish to depend on him in everything; with, however, the addition of these conditions:

First: That it be permitted to us to retain the rite of the Greek Church;
Second: To have a bishop elected by ourselves and confirmed by the Apostolic See;
Third: To have free enjoyment of ecclesiastical immunities.

To these the most Reverend bishop acceded without difficulty. The whole of this, too, the most Illustrious Benedict Kisdi, Bishop of Eger, with his Vicar General, and the Reverend Father Thomas Jaszbereny, religious of the Society of Jesus, being present ratified in the year one thousand six hundred and forty-eight. This business of ours received very great support from the paternal solicitude both of the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Primate of Hungary George Lippay, Archbishop of Esztergom, twice invoked by us through a mission undertaken by the aforesaid Reverend Basilian Fathers, and of the Most Reverend Bishop of Vacz, Matthias Tarnoczy also, to both of whom we are for ever obliged.

Bringing these events before the notice of Your Holiness we unanimously and humbly beg Your paternal benediction, the advance of our cause and the confirmation of the Most Reverend father Peter Parthenius elected by us as bishop.

In Uzhorod, in the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-two, the fifteenth day of January.

The most humble servants of Your Holiness, priest of the Greek rite,

Alexius Ladomersky, archdeacon of Makovica
Stephen Andrejov, archdeacon of Spis
Gregory Hostovicky, archdeacon of Humenne
Stephen, archdeacon of Seredne
Daniel Ivanovic, archdeacon of Uz
Alexius Filipovic, archdeacon of Stropkov

From The Union of Uzhorod by Michael Lacko, SJ Published by the Slovak Institute, Cleveland-Rome, 1976, Pages 107-109

Thank you!

Thanks, Fr. Deacon.

Is anyone aware of a photocopy of the original with the seals on them? There are several of the Union of Brest.
FDD

I am not aware of any photocopies, perhaps the Seminary has one?

The above text comes from the Archivum Secretum Vaticanum-
Acta Congr. Consistorialis, 1771, fol. 171r-172r
and
Nunziatura di Vienna, Vol. 79, fol. 53r-54r

Maybe if you know someone in the Orientale they could get a copy for you?

Yes, certainly at the Orientalium. I thought perhaps there may have been one in the book. Thanks again for posting that.
FDD

It's too bad we could never get a "Union of USA". It could have done great things for our church here in America. Meanwhile we continue to be the ugly step child of the Catholic Church.

Thank you father Deacon Lance for uncovering this translation. I am sure it is genuine, I wonder if there were any additional documents to come out of this meeting of priests.

All: This is most interesting, although in truth I do not understand it completely.

I would like to read comments from the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics who post here regularly on the meaning of this document.

For instance:
What is meant by "sacramental expiation of their sins?" Is it confession? or penance perhaps? Is there a particular reason that this may be mentioned at all?

Is this saying that some of the Rusyn priests expiated their sins or perhaps all the priests confessed to some Latin priests?

The translation seems a bit rough.

Likewise I would like to know what everyone thinks of this:
Does this mean that these priests are accepting Latin theology completely and thoroughly as taught and understood in Rome that year?

Does this mean these priests are rejecting Eastern Christian theological constructs on such points as the Holy Trinity, Purgatory, First Sin etc ?

What is meant by "rite" in this case? How extensive is the category of Rite? does it extend beyond vestments and rubrics to include theology and spirituality?

My fourth question is a little different:
Has this stipulated condition ever been honored? Was Peter Parthenius created the bishop? Did the Rusyn priests name their bishops afterward?

Finally, what is everyone's opinion of the validity of an action taken in this manner by priests without the bishop? Does this group represent a valid synod in the normal or traditional understanding? Can it actually claim for itself the rights of a synod to determine it's own destiny?

I am very interested to learn more about this event from the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic point of view.

Thanks to everyone,
Michael, that sinner

"most holy Father and universal Patriarch" ????

That bizarre form of address might help to illustrate why the attempt to drop the title "Patriarch of the West" causes me to see red. And were the priests in Uzhhorod denying that the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are Patriarchs of somewhere? Or were they simply victims of the mushroom theory of education?

Incognitus

Did the Orthodox not see this coming? If they did what were they doing to try and head this off? I realise that with transport being what it was in those days that communications took longer to reach Constantinople and the Patriarch.

ICXC
NIKA

This was not a free society.

The Hungarian kingdom was in control, border crossings were manned by armed guards.

I would compare it to Communist China today, it is the only major modern state I am aware of that still interferes in religious affairs to the extent that so many European states did in renaissence times. With the possible (slightly lessor) exceptions of Israel and Belarus.

A second important point is the fact that the Turkish Sultan had his own little games to play at the expense of the Patriarchate.

It has been mentioned elsewhere that the local Orthodox bishop was in prison at this time, held by a Protestant Prince no less! If that is so I would like to know what became of him eventually, if he converted also or left the country, died imprisoned or possibly turned about and resisted the unia.

+T+
Michael

I think that the text is mainly important as an historical document.

Clearly, the ecclesiology of the Roman Church of that time had not been enriched by the present rediscovery of the theology of communion in the West, and so, there is a tendency to reduce the "Ruthenian" Church to a "rite."

In addition, I think that it reflects the political situation of that time, and the desire on the part of the Ruthenians to maintain their traditions.

As far as believing what the Roman Church believes, I think that the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) do believe what the Roman Church believes, but the formulation of that belief differs, and there is a different focus and emphasis.

Finally, I do not think that the Union of Brest or the Union of Uzhorod are all that important (beyond historical interest) in the ongoing ecumenical discussions between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. In fact, I think that both of those unions will one day be a dead letter, that is, they will cease to have any meaning once the Eastern Catholic Churches are reintegrated into their mother Churches when communion is restored between the West and the whole of the East. I look forward to that day, because the unions achieved during the 16th and 17th centuries no longer reflect the situation of the Eastern Catholic Churches, or even the ecclesiology of the Roman Church.

"What is meant by "sacramental expiation of their sins?" Is it confession? or penance perhaps? Is there a particular reason that this may be mentioned at all?"

The book explains that the Greek Catholic priests confessed to the Latin priests present.

"Does this mean that these priests are accepting Latin theology completely and thoroughly as taught and understood in Rome that year? Does this mean these priests are rejecting Eastern Christian theological constructs on such points as the Holy Trinity, Purgatory, First Sin etc ?"

I don't think the signers thought this, but eventually it became the position held by many.

"What is meant by "rite" in this case? How extensive is the category of Rite? does it extend beyond vestments and rubrics to include theology and spirituality?"

Hard to say. Probably to an extent.

"Has this stipulated condition ever been honored? Was Peter Parthenius created the bishop? Did the Rusyn priests name their bishops afterward?"

Yes, Bishop Peter was elected by the priests, consecrated by the Orthodox Metropolitan of Moldavia, who knew Bishop Peter was a unionist, and confirmed by Rome. I think the priests may have elcted a couple of his succesors but this ended when the Empress Maria Theresa invoked her right to nominate bihops within her realm.

"Finally, what is everyone's opinion of the validity of an action taken in this manner by priests without the bishop? Does this group represent a valid synod in the normal or traditional understanding? Can it actually claim for itself the rights of a synod to determine it's own destiny?"

Bishop Peter was already ordained bishop. Bishop Basil, while publically having repudiated union due to persecution by the Hungarian Reformed Lord of Uzhhorod, was privately in favor of it and endorsed Bishop Peter while he was still a priest as his successor. Sadly he died before any of this was accomplished.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Apotheoun,

Can you elaborate a bit more? I understand the shift in Roman ecclesiological self-perception, but what do you mean by the phrase, "situaton of the Eastern Catholic Churches"?

God bless,

Chris

Part of the problem has been that the agreements for Kiev and Uzhhorod were not kept, at least for very long. If you read them and then look at what is today you will see the issue. The honeymoon did nto last very long and changes came in thick and fast and some are regretably with us to this day.

The Orthodox rightly look over and recall how all this was set up and what the agreements were and everything else that occured over time that impacted on them. Personally I dont think the various Orthodox churches are really up to date with what is currently happening in the UGCC and the many Churches that are the shadow of the Carpathians (incl. USA Byzantines), beyond a very superficial level. I am of the opinion that if they did they would have somethings to challege the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches with, in regard to them NOT doing their job very well.

ICXC
NIKA

This document is dated 1652. Is there a union document from 1646?