www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The "Mother Church"?

Yes! It is on the Archeparchy of Winnepeg website

http://www.archeparchy.ca/history/union_of_brest.htm

This is on the EWTN site, seems like it fits this discussion. http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/churches_rites_or_sisters.htm

If only EWTN would spell "L'viv" correctly.

Yours,

kl

Ha - and then you wonder why folks like us poor Latins get our spelling wrong - it takes time for us to learn a new way of spelling something - and because of the grey hairs we assimilate such essential information much slower than we used to -speaking for myself of course

Angela, you think that's are bad, try Georgian...

Dear Friends,

Just wondering about the Union of Brest.

What is its status today as a "legal" church document?

The preamble states clearly that the Orthodox bishops seeking union with Rome need assurances from the Pope and the King that their 33 articles will be agreed to by them before they will enter into the unia.

Does that (could that) mean that if Rome broke the agreement later on in some respects - well, does that impact on the unia?

Could it invalidate it?

Alex

My question would be, rather, is it mutually invalidated because of both Rome's and our latinizing bishop's actions since the Union?

In countries with their legal roots in the English common law, material breach of a contract by one party generally excuses performance by the other.

Of course, to have a contract in the first place both sides would have to have good and valuable consideration, but I won't go there.

Yours,

kl

Dear Brother Diak Radoslav,

(Did you see the Old Believer link I posted for you?)

Ultimately, whatever our latinizing bishops did or do wouldn't, technically, invalidate such a contract since it is based on "a prioris" from our Church's point of view.

So if they later on say yes, let's put in the Filioque and have Eucharistic processions and so on - that is technically breaking the earlier agreement but it is also something coming from the Eastern Catholic Church that originally said "I'll be in union with you if you agree to let us do . . ."

But I think you've put your finger on another thing that could explain why Rome insists on having latinizing bishops for us.

Roman bureaucrats wouldn't want to be in a position where they are blamed for Latinization in our Church, if they don't have to be.

They would much, much rather such should come from the bishops they've appointed for our Church.

That way, at least, it looks like we ourselves have, at long last, "come to our senses" and agree to Latinization.

My take on it, anyway.

Alex

Dear KL,

I'm happy to see you are not too mad at me!

There was some debate among the Orthodox about the impact of no longer having a Byzantine Emperor to convene Ecumenical Councils . . .

There no longer is a Polish King, even though I do hope they bring one back in Poland

A number of things have changed since the Union of Brest, including the downfall of the kingdom in which it was spawned and the like.

But I guess my question is "What COULD possibly invalidate" the Union of Brest - apart from all Ukrainian Catholics returning to Orthodoxy?

I'm NOT trying to find a legal way "out" of the Unia, although . . .

Alex

Point of order, Pan Doktor.

If we haven't adhered to Article 1 or other articles the Union because of latinizations, have we not materially then also repudiated the Union? Sticky questions, indeed.

I am very happy to see you are still talking to me.

But the main pro-celibacy argument in the days of war against Cum Data Fuerit was that The Apostolic See (i.e., Rome) because of its supreme authority cannot be bound by the terms of a "contract" (the Union of Brest, the Union of Uzhhorod); it dictates the terms of any such agreement and is free to adhere to them or break with them at will... and that these "Unions" were terms under which we submitted to Rome, not terms by which Rome was bound to do anything.

I know I made a semi-joke above, but it got me thinking - what would be the applicable "law" be in this situation?

Cannon Law as it stands now?

Cannon Law as it was in the 16th C?

Polish civil law under its monarchy?

Probably no "right or wrong" answer on this one - but a sticky situation indeed.

Yours,

kl

Dear kl, perhaps it is like this. I'm no attorney, nor canon lawyer nor claim to be.

In my mind the Articles of Union are the precidental basis of our relationship with the Roman Church, but the CCEO and its clarifications in the particular law, in our case the pastoral Guide/Archeparchial Statutes represent the current jurisprudence in this matter.

Every precedent in law has later clarification based on the applied jurisprudence.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Time for another Union agreement, perhaps?

*runs and hides*