www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Greco-Russian Church?

Dear friends,

One of my good friend recently showed me his copy of Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma. In it, there was a document from 1575 by Pope Gregory XIII, the same pope who introduced the calendar.

The document was a Profession of Faith for the "Greco-Russian Church" to come into union with Rome. The thrust of the document seem to be that the "Greco-Russian" Church should accept the filioque as understood by the Roman Church.

I want research this more intensely, and tried vainly to find an eletronic copy of it on the internet and could not.

Does anyone know:

Is the Greco-Russian Church referred to actually in reference to the Ruthenian/Ukrainian Church which was to come into union with Rome 20 years later? Or all of the East Slavic Byzantine Churches? Is there a translation issue- that is, does the original Latin document have something like, "Ruthenian-Greco."? (I am not conflating the East Slavic groups here myself, but I know that they often are all called "Russian" by others).

What do people think:

Is this statement from both New Advent & Wikipedia correct: "It was agreed that the "Filioque" should not be inserted in the Nicene Creed, although the Ruthenian clergy professed and taught the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (Jesus Christ)."

Where do most of the Greek Catholics on this forum fall on this question- do we have the exact same theology of the Eternal Procession as our Orthodox counterparts? Or do we accept Rome's teaching, and but recite the Creed without the filioque for the sake of liturgical tradition?

In 1575 the term Ruthenian (Rusyn) would have been in reference to the people of what is today Ukraine and Belarus which at the time were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Muscovy was found to the North and was inhabited by people who were known as Muscovites ('Moscali' in Ukrainian / Rusyn). It was only in the later 17th century under Muscovite Czar Peter the Great that the 'Moscali' agressively usurped the term 'Rus' to become Russians or 'Great Russians'. The term Russian only fell into wider use in the 18th century when relatively small Muscovy dramatically grew to became the Imperial Czardom of Russia.

I.F.

This is how I always understood the terms. So in this document, Russians might be a anachronistic translation, and it is probably referring to the Ruthenian Church (Belarusans & Ukrainians).

The "Greco-Russian Church" is often used as a term to mean the Russian Orthodox Church (the State Church of the Tsarist Empire).

As to the Filioque, nothing in the Union of Brest required the Greek-Catholics to use it. Such a requirement appeared only in the Synod of Zamost'.

Fr. Serge

Father, Bless-

To press the question further- we in the Byzantine Catholic Churches were not required to use the filioque litrugically, but are we required to believe it?

I too, thought that Greco-Russian would typically refer to the Russian Orthodox Church in the Tsarist empire; but I questioned the usage in this particular document, because of the early date (1575) and the reasons listed above by Jean Francois...

Blessings,

Lance

The Blessing of the Lord!

I suppose this depends on several considerations.

Nobody can require us to believe that the addition of the Filioque in the first place was either necessary or prudent - the Popes resisted it for quite a long time, and it was eventually forced on Rome by a German Emperor.

As to the underlying teaching, it's too complicated for me to figure out what the Filioquists are trying to accomplish. So I tend to regard it as an unimportant theologoumenon - the real issue is the interpolation, and part of the issue seems to arise because the Latin word "procedere" can translate no fewer than four Greek words, each with its own shade of meaning - which is why ten years or so ago, Rome announced that the Filioque is orthodox in Latin but not in Greek, which is nothing if not bizarre.

Fr. Serge

Dear Friends,

The term "Greco-Ruthenian/Russian" is contained in the title of the Church of which Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor was primate.

The full title that he established was: "The Particular Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Byzantine-Ukrainian Rite (Greco-Ruthenian)."

As for the Filioque, it was not required at the Union of Brest (although it was understood by the RC's that the Eastern Catholics accepted the theology behind it as normative).

In other, later historical contexts, the Filioque became a kind of "banner" for Ukrainian Catholics in the struggle against Russification.

Indeed, in areas taken over by Russian Tsarist forces, "Easternization" programs for the EC Church were announced, beginning with the removal of the Filioque. That marked the beginning, as well, of the complete Russification of the EC church and its later, forcible, "reunification" with the "Mother Russian Orthodox Church."

That is one reason why the Filioque is maintained quite scrupulously in parts of the UGCC, especially in western Ukraine.

It is not just a residual Latinization where "people don't know better."

Alex