www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology If the Union had NOT been signed

Dear Friends,

Halychanyn raised the question, and it is a good one.

What would have happened to the Church of Kyiv had the Union of Brest-Litovske NOT been signed in 1596?

Would the people have remained united and strong in one Orthodox Church - and nation?

Would Latinization and Polonization have been an impossibility?

What are the negatives in the aftermath of that union?

What are the positives?

Which outweigh the others, do you think?

Alex

Every point raised is worthy of a dissertation.

I think given the divisive presence of three Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine alone, with or without the Union there would not be ecclesiastical unity in Orthodoxy. This is greatly due to Soviet-era dynamics and really not dependent on the Union. The tensions between the UOC-MP and UOC-KP speak for themselves, as well as talk of additional divisions within the UAOC.

Nor would the difficulties between Ukrainian identity vs. that of a "Great Russia" have been averted. Catherine II and other rulers who outlawed Ukrainian language education and literature that Shevchenko lamented would still have prevailed regardless of the Union.

Polish atrocities against the Orthodox, which were protested by Metropolitan Andrey and later Patriarch Josyp, would have continued without the Union. But without the Union and another voice in Rome within the Catholic Church protesting this, who knows what the outcome would be.

And with regard to the whole issue of "Latinization", St. Peter Moghila, never within the Union, has even been accused as "latinized" by some Orthodox. But even after a strong and unifying leader like Moghila Orthodoxy is still divided in Ukraine. But he was much more effective in resisting wholesale latinizations than were the Greek Catholics of his time.

Even though there are various internal factions (which is a dynamic of any large societal group) one positive I see is a rallying UGCC unity around Patriarch Lubomyr, as there was around Patriarch Josyp and Metropolitan Andrey. Not that any of these didn't have their internal detractors. Patriarch Lubomyr is much admired and was even voted the "most respected clergyman" by a prominent Ukrainian news program.

But certainly latinizations have to be amongst the greatest negatives. Once in union, there seemed to be a great need by many in the hierarchy, and much of the Basilian order, to be more like Rome spiritually, liturgically, and theologically.

We can speculate endlessly about the "what ifs" of all this. I think in the end historically, the Union itself was probably inevitable given the political situation with Russia and surrounding areas as well as the frequent contacts with Rome. If it wasn't Mikhail Rahoza it would have likely been someone else.

Even Almighty God never answers the question "what would have happened if . . . " Incognitus

I raised the point perhaps not thinking it through, but here's my very amateur speculation.

Without the Unia, there would have been no Ukrainian Church as we know it today. Let me explain. Ukraine was, as it was for much of the last few centuries, divided between a Latin-Rite Polish monarch and the Russian Orthodox Muscovite Czar.

Caught in this political tug-of-war becasue of its geographically indefensible position, the Orthodox believers in the Polish, i.e. Western Ukrainian territories were being persecuted for not being Catholic. Had the Unia not occurred, the Western Ukrainian lands would have become primarily Latin Rite Catholic.

With the Unia, at least there was a sense among the Polish authorities that, "they're not quite of the superior Roman Rite, but at least they recognize the Oytets Swientiy." (please pardon my Polish spelling).

As for the Eastern Lands, well, most believers became subject to the Muscovite Patriarch. While the Unia did not prevent this, the fact that the UGCC existed did provide some basis for a Kyiv-based Patriarch for big-O Orthodox Ukrainians during the re-birth of the late 1980's and 1990's.

Was there a price to pay? Sure! Latinization is still (depiste our best efforts) rampant in Halychyna and in the Ukrainian diaspora to this day.

Do we have bishops and priests who can't seem to screw in a lightbulb without reporting to Rome? Yep!

Are we seen as some kind of regional Western Ukrainian sect? You bet!

Are there hordes of people who do not understand that we are of the same faith as our Orthodox brothers down the street? Unfortunately.

Still, taking the good with the bad, I think we came out OK. The "downsides" are reversible and the slow process back to our true selves has begun.

To those of us here, de-Latinization, a unified Kyivan Patriarchate, and communion with both Rome and Constantinople are "no-brainers." For others, they are not. Without, the Unia, we would not have known the difference - we would have been Latins.

Yours,

halychanyn

[Are there hordes of people who do not understand that we are of the same faith as our Orthodox brothers down the street? Unfortunately.]

If you shared the same faith as your Orthodox brothers down the street there would have been no reason to turn your backs on those same brothers not once, but twice in the history of your church. Now would there?
You share the same ritual as your Orthodox brothers down the street but you share the faith of your Roman Catholic Overlords. What do you think being 'In Communion with Rome' means?

[To those of us here, de-Latinization, a unified Kyivan Patriarchate, and communion with both Rome and Constantinople are "no-brainers." ]

Perhaps you should contact your Melkite brothers concerning the reply they got from both Rome and Constantinople when they proposed the same type of dual Communion. The answer was exactly the same from both.

[Without, the Unia, we would not have known the difference - we would have been Latins.]

From your post you still don't know the difference

OrthoMan

We most certainly do. Bob, it was the legitimately elected Metropolitan of Kyiv as well as the legitimately elected Patriarch of Antioch who approached for union. How we were treated by Rome is history, sometimes painful, as is how we were treated by Moscow. Also painful. One-sided polemic will solve nothing.

Overlords? That is too ridiculous to even respond to. What do you want? Old Calendar parishes? Married priests? No Filioque? I think we have all of that.

And why should we approach the jurisdictional froth that is Orthodoxy in Ukraine? At least the UGCC has one visible church and hierarchy there. The chaotic situation of Orthodoxy in Ukraine unfortunately speaks for itself.

Hmmm, Orthodox liturgists quote Taft, Arranz, Mateos...Minge's Patrologica Graeca...I could go on but the point is made.

Bob (t254@aol.com)--with no disrespect intended at all, if what is said here and what goes on here bothers you and "makes your blood boil" as you said in one post...AND you are so faithfully and staunchly Orthodox, why do you bother to keep visiting, reading, and posting on this site?

Almost every post seems to have some invective in it. We're Greek Catholic, you're Orthodox. If that's not comfortable for you I'm very sorry. It's seems that there are a lot of issues below the surface here.

Z Bohom!

A certain hit song by Styx comes immediately to mind... :rolleyes:

[AND you are so faithfully and staunchly Orthodox, why do you bother to keep visiting, reading, and posting on this site?]

To present the 'other side of the story'. To tell the truth. To help you learn your true heritage. To provide those points in history that have been kept from you or rewritten for you.

Once you know both sides of the story...then and only then can you have all the facts to determine where you belong. Which, ultimately, is your and only your decision to make.

I know I can be a little direct at times but that's the only way I have of expressing myself.

OrthoMan

OrthoMan said:

That's funny. All I see is hatred and contempt.

Yours,

halychanyn

Although I wouldn't use the term "overlord" I think the substance of what OrthoMan says is true. The pope is "the man" and actually is over the universal Catholic church just as a Patriarch is over his own Orthodox church.

I sometimes see EC's online speak as though they were EO and not EC. I understand the similarities are huge but the differences (e.g., papal doctrines, universal authority of pope) are also huge.

But then there are RC's that far too often reject true teaching as well.

Please don't read into this any ill will against the EC's at all. In fact, if there were one near my house then I'd attend it! But I think OrthoMan's criticism is true in that many EC's seem to not understand the difference between EC and EO and they pretend there isn't really a difference.

My 2 cents worth.

Dear Eric:

What you say is contrary to the concept of a sui juris Church in communion with the Roman Pope. The way it is supposed to work, the way many of us see it, is that each sui juris church functions within itself and within the parameters of its own theology and tradition.

The Pope, in our view, must not interfere in the governance of ay sui juris Church in communion with him EXCEPT in a time of great need or crisis - something on the level of heresy (and don't give me that crap about the Pope himself being a heretic in the eyes of the big-o Orthodox. That's a wimpy arugment and an easy way out).

Now, does the system work the way many of us, in our humble opinions, believe it should? No. Has the "Roman Empire" model of governance that the Western Patriarchate adopted found its way into the internal workings of our Churches? Yep.

Does this mean we should sever all ties with Rome and take the extreme position taken by Mr. Bob over there? If so, then we might as well bury any hope of ecumenical ties between the two great Apostilic traditions.

Allow me to draw a parallel. For years Ukrainians fought the Soviet regime from "the outside." Then, one fine day in the 1980's (during perestrioka, admittedly) a brave young man worked his way through the ranks of the Communist Party into the parliament of the Ukrainian SSR and began quietly working for an independent state "on the inside." At first we here in the diaspora didn't want to embrace him, but eventually we came to realize that this was the way. Our cause could not survive by dissent alone. Our brothers and sisters in Ukrain had to work within the structire that had been built up over 70 years to change it.

This is what we continue to work toward within the framework of our communion with Rome.

Now, does this mean, that there are differences in theology, ritual, tradition or anything else that is important to the Faith that differentiates us from our Orthodox brothers down the street? To this question I give you my resounding "no."

As I have said before, God doesn't give a flying leap whether we are in communion with the Roman Pope or not and I refuse to accept any suggestion that says that there is any difference between my Faith and that of any other legitimate member of the Church of Constantinople and her daughter churches.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eric:
[QB] [
]Although I wouldn't use the term "overlord" I think the substance of what OrthoMan says is true. The pope is "the man" and actually is over the universal Catholic church just as a Patriarch is over his own Orthodox church.


Well, even a Patriarch has to consult with his Holy Synod, something the Pope does not have to do. There is more collegiality in Orthodoxy which is something the Roman Catholic Church proposed at Vatican II.

Umm, Haly, umm, I'm afraid that this statement is contrary to the Catholic Faith.


LatinTrad

I missed something here. Pretend? Speaking of Rome have you read any of the Holy Father's admonitions for Greek Catholics to fully restore their traditions? Do you really think in this simplistic accusation you make here that Eastern Catholics don't know who we are or that we somehow do not feel the pain of separation with our Orthodox brothers? We all too painfully realize there is a division.

Really it is quite simple. Anyone who wishes not to be in union with Rome can leave that union. Noone is stopping them. Some opt to do this, as some opt to enter union from Orthodoxy. Unfortunately this again is a symptom of disunity and imperfect communion between Rome and Orthdoxy outside of Rome.

We do not pretend to dictate the identity of other churches and it is interesting that everyone else wants to define our identity except ourselves.

Since this post started with the Union of Brest, and thus the Kyivan Church, Bob still does not offer adequate response as to why we should enter union with an Orthodox church(es) that are nowhere near united in Ukraine, nor the fact that the hierarchy of the mother church of Moscow, Kyiv, is not even recognized as legitimate by Moscow.

If you want to be confused real quick, Eric, look at the unfortunate state of the Orthodox churches in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Catholic Church, on the other hand, at least in Ukraine, in the lands of the Union, is united and growing. It seems unfortunately that the more confusing situation at least in Ukraine would be outside of communion with Rome.