|
0 members (),
473
guests, and
95
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,526
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56 |
Here's something interesting in " A History of Ukraine [ books.google.co.uk] " by Magocsi: In December 1595, Bishops Potii and Terlets'kyi took the two episcopal letters and the Brest articles to Rome. It is important to note that the pope neither approved nor rejected the proposed articles. Instead, on 23 December he issued a papal decree (Magnus Dominus et laudabilis) recognizing 'all sacred rites and ceremonies which the Ruthenian [Rus'] bishops and clergy use' as long as they were 'not opposed to the truth and doctrine of the Catholic faith'. Thus, what later members of the Uniate or Greek Catholic church believed to be their historic rights guaranteed by the Union of Brest were nothing more than their own demands, which could be approved or rejected at the discretion of the pope ... I have seen the Union of Brest quoted frequently on this forum, but only from an anonymous English translation which is presumably recent. For instance this version [ ewtn.com] mentions the original languages were Polish, Ukrainian and Latin. Does anyone know where the original Latin text can be found? Assuming Magocsi is correct then the it would be Clement VIII's constitution "Magnus Dominus" Dec. 23. 1595 that would be definitive rather than the Brest articles. Does anyone know where this constitution "Magnus Dominus" can be found?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
The original Latin text can be found in Rome and Ukraine (a photograph of the original appears in several books). The EWTN translation is from the Latin original.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 580
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 580 |
Assuming Magocsi is correct then the it would be Clement VIII's constitution "Magnus Dominus" Dec. 23. 1595 that would be definitive rather than the Brest articles. Does anyone know where this constitution "Magnus Dominus" can be found? Magosci is correct. His account is no different from that of other academic scholars. The key word is academic scholars whith doctorates in history teaching at major universities. You can also check older books by Hrushevsky, Doroshenko etc. I would be very surprised to see a "Ukrainian" version of the proposed Articles of Brest. Polish was the language of communication in the area and official language of government. This site is not run by scholars: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTMMaybe the writer was thinking of Church Slavonic, which was still in use as a written language at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56 |
Could you provide a title of one of the books with the Latin original?
I think it would be useful to get the Latin posted on the internet. Here's one reason why:
On another thread someone was saying that "double procession" of the Holy Spirit is heretical on the basis that this phrase is rejected in article 1 of Brest (and the assumption that this was agreed by Rome). But without seeing the Latin original how do we even know whether this should have been translated into English as "two spirations" (if the Latin is "duas spirationes" as per what was rejected at Florence).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56 |
Was the Union of Brest originally supposed to happen in 1575 (but got delayed 20 years)? I see in Denzinger [ catecheticsonline.com] (numbers 1083-1084) a Profession of Faith "from the acts concerning the union of the Greco-Russian church 1575" Here's the original Latin [ catho.org] (numbers 1985-1987). Would this have been the profession of faith that is refered to in this article on the Union of Brest [ en.wikipedia.org] ? On 7 Feb., 1596, Pope Clement VIII addressed to the Ruthenian episcopate the Brief "Benedictus sit Pastor ille bonus", enjoining the convocation of a synod in which the Ruthenian bishops were to recite the profession of the Catholic Faith. Again this document "Benedictus sit Pastor ille bonus" is presumably gathering dust somewhere. Would it not be a good idea for someone to post it on the internet?
Last edited by Irish Melkite; 02/23/09 04:31 AM. Reason: formatting
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 580
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 580 |
On another thread someone was saying that "double procession" of the Holy Spirit is heretical on the basis that this phrase is rejected in article 1 of Brest (and the assumption that this was agreed by Rome). I don't understand why this even matters, since as Prof. Magocsi points out "The Articles of the Union of Brest" were never even signed by the Pope. Interestingly enough Prof. Subtelny points out in his book how the bishops who went to Rome were called "wolves in sheep's clothing" This Union that was proclaimed in Rome was rejected by the Kozaks, whose banner was Orthodoxy and Ukraine, and by the lower clergy and laity. That is why to this day only 10% of Ukraine is Catholic. If you are trying to look at issues of doctrine then maybe you should look at the union of the Orthodox in Galicia who came under Rome when the Austrian government gained control of the area. Where are the documents behind this union and what were the issues of doctrine? Also the Synod of Zamost made a lot of changes. Look into those proceedings as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
The Orthodox in Galicia became Greek-Catholic around 1700, many decades before Austria gained possession of Galicia. Austria protected the Greek-Catholics against some of the worst of the Polish abuses.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 262
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 262 |
The Orthodox in Galicia became Greek-Catholic around 1700, many decades before Austria gained possession of Galicia. Austria protected the Greek-Catholics against some of the worst of the Polish abuses.
Fr. Serge The partition of Poland which brought Austrian rule to Galicia was in 1722. However, the last Orthodox place of worship to be closed down by Austrian troops was in 1784.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,964
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,964 |
I seem to remember that the Eparch of Lviv joined the Union of Brest in 1707. This was when Poland still ruled in Galicia / Halychyna. The first partition of Poland occurred in 1772. If the last Orthodox Churches were closed in 1784, this was only 12 years after the partition. Neither Poland nor Austria seemed to be friendly toward Orthodoxy. The The Orthodox in Galicia became Greek-Catholic around 1700, many decades before Austria gained possession of Galicia. Austria protected the Greek-Catholics against some of the worst of the Polish abuses.
Fr. Serge The partition of Poland which brought Austrian rule to Galicia was in 1722. However, the last Orthodox place of worship to be closed down by Austrian troops was in 1784.
Last edited by Two Lungs; 03/01/09 10:15 PM. Reason: spelling
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
I believe Fr. Dr. Borys Gudziak has copies of the original texts within his Harvard dissertation (which later became the larger book Crisis and Reform). I doubt the classicists and historians at Harvard (who had academic and likely very little polemic interest) who reviewed his translations from the original languages in his doctoral dissertation would have allowed gross errors in translation slide. From Orientales Omnes Ecclesias: but in spite of this on 8th October 1596 the union of the Ruthenian community with the Catholic Church was happily confirmed and proclaimed. And later in the same Encyclical We have now seen, from the brief historical relation of events in this letter, how many and how great were the benefits and blessings brought to the Ruthenian people by its union with the Catholic Church. "Its union" seems clear, and not "our union with the Ruthenians" or "our understanding of the Union". It seems rather nonsensical that both John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter on the Fourth Centenary of the Union as well as Pope Pius XII (among others) would extol a Union in Magisterial documents to which they had grave reservations or changes of articles without mentioning those specifically. In the UGCC we certainly have never considered any articles changed or altered, and Rome has never officially declared otherwise. From the Apostolic Letter on the Fourth Centenary: The Bishops who promoted the union and the members of their Church retained a lively awareness of their original close ties to their Orthodox brethren, together with a full consciousness of the Oriental identity of their Metropolia, an identity which was also to be upheld after the union. In the history of the Catholic Church, it is a highly significant fact that this just desire was respected and that the act of union did not involve passing over to the Latin tradition, as some thought would happen. Their Church saw an acknowledgment of its right to be governed by its own hierarchy with a specific discipline and to maintain its Eastern liturgical and spiritual heritage. Obviously those dealing with European monarchies have to be taken according to current conditions, but the basic articles themselves do not seem to be in question at all with either Rome or the UGCC.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
With all respect to Dr. Magosci, as it does contain a great deal of good information, both in Ukraine and in North America Dr. Gudziak's later, much more detailed and much better documented research from his doctoral work at Harvard and subsequent research specifically pertaining to the Union of Brest has taken academic precedence as the premier corpus of research work on the Union of Brest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 580
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 580 |
With all respect to Dr. Magosci, as it does contain a great deal of good information, both in Ukraine and in North America Dr. Gudziak's later, much more detailed and much better documented research from his doctoral work at Harvard and subsequent research specifically pertaining to the Union of Brest has taken academic precedence as the premier corpus of research work on the Union of Brest. I have read both books and see no disagreement. The only difference but not disagreement is that Magosci's book is an outline of Ukrianian history while the other book centres on one topic only. Here's something interesting in " A History of Ukraine " by Magocsi:
Quote:
In December 1595, Bishops Potii and Terlets'kyi took the two episcopal letters and the Brest articles to Rome. It is important to note that the pope neither approved nor rejected the proposed articles. Instead, on 23 December he issued a papal decree (Magnus Dominus et laudabilis) recognizing 'all sacred rites and ceremonies which the Ruthenian [Rus'] bishops and clergy use' as long as they were 'not opposed to the truth and doctrine of the Catholic faith'. Thus, what later members of the Uniate or Greek Catholic church believed to be their historic rights guaranteed by the Union of Brest were nothing more than their own demands, which could be approved or rejected at the discretion of the pope ...
I have seen the Union of Brest quoted frequently on this forum, but only from an anonymous English translation which is presumably recent. For instance this version mentions the original languages were Polish, Ukrainian and Latin.
Does anyone know where the original Latin text can be found?
Assuming Magocsi is correct then the it would be Clement VIII's constitution "Magnus Dominus" Dec. 23. 1595 that would be definitive rather than the Brest articles. Does anyone know where this constitution "Magnus Dominus" can be found? Neither book claims that the Pope signed the "Articles of the Union of Brest". Orest Subtelny's book also complies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
It makes the celibacy stuff in North America make more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 580
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 580 |
It makes the celibacy stuff in North America make more sense. This is a very good point. Thanks. It does explain the history of why problems developed in North America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
This is a very good point. Thanks. It does explain the history of why problems developed in North America. The problem with celibacy in North America had little to do with the Union, but with more recent developments such as the ignoring of Orientalium Dignitas and the personal agenda of a few American (and Americanist) bishops. In any case, at least in the UGCC, we have resolved this in the last twenty years. Please see the citations of the Magisterial documents above; again it is nonsensical to think two Popes in the last century would publically praise the Union if it were defective from the Roman perspective or considered not in force or not accepted. The only ones who question this issue of "signing" the Union of Brest are neither Roman or Ukrainian Greek Catholics who are the parties to the mutual communion. A statement of communion is just that, a statement. That statement was accepted by Rome. And later extolled by multiple Pontiffs. Believe it never existed or is somehow "invalid" if you want - history, our hierarchy, and Rome does not agree.
|
|
|
|
|
