Georgia and Croatia

It is my understanding that the nation of Georgia is Christian but I do not know what form of Christianity the people of that nation ascribe. Is it in communion with Rome? If not, what is their disagreement? Does the Catholic Church recognize their priestly orders as being valid?

I have heard similar things about Croatia but do not know what applies to that nation, either. Pardon me for my ignorance!

Georgian was converted to Christianity by the Equal-to-the-Apostles St. Nina (a woman, btw) in the 4th century, i.e. the generation of the Council of Nicea I. Her maternal uncle was the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and she was related on her father’s side to St. George, so of Jewish-Arab Palestinian heritage. She converted the Queen and King (interwined the Armenian royalty, who had converted as the first Kingdom to enter the Kingdom of Heaven). The last dynasty of Georgia, the Bagratids, were of Armenian (and Davidic) origin. The Church of Georgia followed Armenia after Chalcedon, but later rejoined the Eastern Orthodox Communion as an independent Catholicos-Patriarch (she had been under Antioch).

Since the Georgian Church is in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox, Rome is not in communion with her, and all the issues are those with the Eastern Orthodox.

The majority of Croatians are under the pope of Rome, but because of her history (she was evangelized by missionaries from Constantinople) she has always had a vernacular Slavonic missal, even after the rite of Rome was imposed and the rite of Constantinople supressed, and even has retained the Glagolithic letters the Slavs have abadoned for the Cyrillic letters. There are, or were, many Orthodox Serbs in Croatia: the genocide against them in WWII and recently has changed that. The Vatican being the first state to recognize Croatia’s independence didn’t help matters.

They have a local bishop I must inform you.

but because of her history (she was evangelized by missionaries from Constantinople)

Not true. Dalmatia never used the Byzantine rite. Not that the Byzantine rite is bad, they just never used it.

she has always had a vernacular Slavonic missal

True

, even after the rite of Rome was imposed and the rite of Constantinople supressed,

Not true as the Roman rite is what Dalmatia was converted under, not the Byzantine rite

and even has retained the Glagolithic letters the Slavs have abadoned for the Cyrillic letters.

True, can’t argue with that. I can read Slavonic but not the Glagolithic letters they have on the walls in Croatia.

There are, or were, many Orthodox Serbs in Croatia

Or as Croats say, Croats not in communion with Rome.

: the genocide against them in WWII and recently has changed that.

True. Nazis killed a lot of people, but watch your words because Catholics were not involved in the killing. The same can not be said of the Communist that took power later and their relation to the Orthodox.

The Vatican being the first state to recognize Croatia’s independence didn’t help matters.

The Vatican did the right thing there. Croatia should not be controled by Serbia nor should Catholics have orthodox supressing us.

Little history about Dalmatia for you, It was a Latin speaking Roman territory when the Slavs first came. It is true that the Byzantines went into Slav territory to convert them but in Dalmatia it was the Slav coming into Latin territory and being converted. The Latin Rite was already established there. Then the mojority of the population became Slavonic speaking the Pope allowed the Roman rite to be translated into Slavonic and that tradition has continued ever since.

Also please note that Poland had the same option as the Croats did but choose to have all priest say Mass in Latin.

What does this tell us, that of all the languages out there, the Catholic Church can say Mass in potentially any of them. The orthodox have said over and over again that they will never say liturgy in Latin, no matter what. They restrict themselves from it.

On an only slightly related tangent, it is interesting to note that of the 5 living languages currently spoken in Croatia (Croatian, Italian, Veneto, Istro-Romanian, and Istriot) 4 are romance languages. The Istriot language, though with only about 1,000 speakers today, is actually native to Croatia and predates the Slavic tongue. The Dalmatian language, once dominant in Croatia, was also spoken until the late 1800s, when the last speaker died. This language, an extremely close relative of Italian (in fact, together with Sicilian and Neapolitan, they formed the Italo-Dalmatian branch of romance languages), had been spoken in the region since the romance languages began evolving sufficiently to clearly distinguish themselves from Latin.

Just a little nod to Croatia’s Latin history. Actually, I should say its Latin present, as Italian has official status in Istria province where it is spoken by nearly 100,000 people (This number also includes roughly 70,000 Veneto speakers who are fluent in Veneto and Italian).

In Croatia there are around 4,5 million people, 90-95 % of which are catholic. The large majority is roman catholic, and a couple of thousand people belong to eastern catholics, in croatian we call them “greek catholics” but they are all in communion with Rome.
Unfortunately, “greek” catholicism is preserved only in a couple of communities in the western and northern part of the country, but we have a true blessing having them and their beautiful liturgy in our capital, Zagreb.
The community is small, but tries to preserve tradition. I have a few roman catholic friends who attend eastern catholic liturgy, since they find it more mystical than the NOM.
(we don’t have the opportunity to participate in the TLM here in Croatia).

who is sent by whom?

Not true. Dalmatia never used the Byzantine rite. Not that the Byzantine rite is bad, they just never used it.
True
Not true as the Roman rite is what Dalmatia was converted under, not the Byzantine rite

I’m speaking of the Croatians and the related Slavs, not Dalmatia, which predates the Croatians.

And in particular speaking of when the choice of rites was taken away, and one suppressed.

True, can’t argue with that. I can read Slavonic but not the Glagolithic letters they have on the walls in Croatia.

Yes, it shows the use in Croatia is a relic itself.

Those that say that (I am assuming that they are not all Croats) of course are not shy about solving that “problem” by the sword, as the facts connected with your comments below show.

True. Nazis killed a lot of people, but watch your words because Catholics were not involved in the killing.

Oh?
state.gov/www/regions/eur/rpt_9806_ng_ustasha.pdf

I am quite sure not all were involved with the killing, but no one in communion with the Vatican? No, the facts do not bear that up.

The same can not be said of the Communist that took power later and their relation to the Orthodox.

Tito was Croatian-Slovene, neither of which are majority Orthodox. Tito broke up Serbia, promoting the Hungarians in Vojvodina (14% of the population) and the Albanians in Kosovo (I remember in the early 90’s seeing a documentary on EWTN on the crypto-Catholics in Kosovo, who pretend to be Muslim. Why is that?:rolleyes: ), and re-dividing Montenegro from Serbia (renaming its capital “Titograd”) and created “Muslim” as a nationality, to separate Bosnia from Serbia (the majority of Bosnia were never Muslims, and the Muslims who didn’t want an Islamic state, as Izzetbegovic was preaching, sided with the Serbs. The largest community in BiH were the Orthodox Serbs, until the Ustaše changed the demographics, and even then, the Serbs were only just behind the Boniacs).

The Vatican did the right thing there. Croatia should not be controled by Serbia nor should Catholics have orthodox supressing us.

When the newly minted Croatian state started renaming streets and public squares after Ustaše, it was clear who was going to be oppressing whom.
Btw, on that:
Alperin v. Vatican Bank was originally filed in Federal Court in San Francisco in November 1999. The plaintiffs are concentration camp survivors of Serb, Jewish, and Ukrainian background and their relatives as well as organizations representing over 300,000 Holocaust victims and their heirs.

The plaintiffs seek an accounting and restitution of the Ustasha Treasury that **according to the US State Department ** was illicitly transferred to the Vatican, the Franciscan Order and other banks after the end of the war. The claims against the Vatican has been dismissed and is now on appeal, the claim against the Franciscans goes on.state.gov/www/regions/eur/rpt_9806_ng_ustasha.pdf

Little history about Dalmatia for you, It was a Latin speaking Roman territory when the Slavs first came.

And long after: Romanian is not the only Romance language in the Balkans. The Emperors Constantine (builder of Constanitnople, caller of the First Ecumenical Council) and Justinian (caller of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and codifier of Roman law at Constantinople into the Justinian Code) came from the area (actually further inland, in Serbia), as well as Diocletian, last (not counting Julian the Apostate) of the persecuting emperors. Diocletian was Greek, but Constantine and Justianian were Latin. The Latin used in the “Passion of the Christ” seems to reflect that dialect, from which most troops at the time were coming from.

It is true that the Byzantines went into Slav territory to convert them but in Dalmatia it was the Slav coming into Latin territory and being converted. The Latin Rite was already established there. Then the mojority of the population became Slavonic speaking the Pope allowed the Roman rite to be translated into Slavonic and that tradition has continued ever since.

There is the texts that state that the Duke Porin who accepted the emperor Heraclius’ invitation from Constantinople to settle in the region and accept Christianity (in its Eastern form, it would seem). But, you are correct, Rome had a deep presence there already, and seems to have translated the texts after the refugees from Moravia arrived (Cyril and Methodius already had evangelized neighboring Pannonia, present day Croatia and Slovenia and elsewhere, and made it a center for the spread of that liturgy before the Franks suppressed it there too) with the Eastern Slavonic rite. As Archbishop of Sirmium, St. Methodius had Croatia in his diocese. He was later, however forbidden the Slavonic Eastern liturgy by Rome.

Also please note that Poland had the same option as the Croats did but choose to have all priest say Mass in Latin.

Can you provide some backup to this, as the conversion took place because of the marriage of Msieszko I to a Czech, and allied with the “Holy Roman Empire.” The Saxons were busy with the Drang nach Osten, the Germans had already supressed the Slavoinic Eastern Rite and impossed the Latin and filioque. Under these circumstances I find it highly unlikely that Poland was given a choice.
The Patroness of Poland, of course, Our Lady of Częstochowa (obviously an Eastern Icon: I had the privledge of venerating her during the Communist era), came from Jerusalem via New Rome Constantinople and the Ukraine.

What does this tell us, that of all the languages out there, the Catholic Church can say Mass in potentially any of them. The orthodox have said over and over again that they will never say liturgy in Latin, no matter what. They restrict themselves from it.

My priest says the priests prayers (and the hours) in Latin all the time. I’ve been to a Western Rite Orthodox Divine Liturgy, parts of which were in Latin. I pray the Angelus in Latin. There is a whole Autocephalous Church, Romania, whose liturgical language is the closest to Latin. I’m not aware of any Orthodox problem with a Latin liturgy (if the people speak it). How are you?

I’m not sure your questions were ever answered.

Hopefully to simplify:

Georgia is mostly Orthodox, not in communion with Rome. Croatia is mostly Catholic.

The “disagreements” are, from the Orthodox perspective, numerous and pervasive, but including the authority of the Pope. From the Catholic side, pretty much limited to acceptance of the authority of the Pope.

The Catholic Church accepts the validity of Orthodox orders and sacraments. The Orthodox Churches, by and large, do not accept the validity of Catholic orders and sacraments.

A lot of confusion can be created by the fact that the Orthodox also consider themselves the only “Catholic” Church and will sometimes use that term to describe themselves. Also confusing is the fact that sometimes Orthodox will say the validity of Catholic orders and sacraments is “irrelevant”; in other words “we don’t concern ourselves with it”, which leaves the question nowhere in a “formal” sense. Some will simply say that Catholic orders and sacraments are invalid. I have never seen an Orthodox in here say, unequivocally, that Cathoic orders and sacraments are valid, though I might have missed it.

As one who has been in these threads before, perhaps I should warn you that the Orthodox/Latin discussions are a descent into a labyrinth; interesting sometimes to explore if one is so inclined, but with no real exit. The discussions usually go nowhere.

[qutoe=“Isa Almistry”]Oh?
state.gov/www/regions/eur…ng_ustasha.pdf

I am quite sure not all were involved with the killing, but no one in communion with the Vatican? No, the facts do not bear that up.

That’s like Holding the Muscovte Synod responsible for Reader Yosif Stalin. (Yes, Stalin was in minor orders in the Russian Orthodox Faith.) Well, no… more like holding the synod responsible for the actions of the great many chrismated Russian Orthodox in the Soviet Army during the pogroms.

It matters little whose church they attended… they neither reflected particular church policy nor universal church policy.

Just to briefly reply to the question about the Croatian bishops. They are Roman Catholic, so the Pope is the one to put them on the Bishop seat. Just like anywhere else where there is Catholic Church.
The Greek Catholics also have a bishop, who is faithful to the Pope, and the Pope also makes him bishop.

Or as Croats say, Croats not in communion with Rome.

I am 24 years old, lived my whole life in Croatia, and never heard that.
Orthodox Christians in Croatia are not Croat, they are Serbian, Macedonian, Montenegrian (is that the word? :confused: ), etc.
Eastern Catholics in Croatia, who follow the Eastern liturgy, are in communion with the Pope, and share all the beliefs with Roman Catholics.
Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians are not the same.

He was in seminary (his mother’s urging: he never forgave her) before he became a communist. That was 25+years before he came to power. Not exactly the same.

Well, no… more like holding the synod responsible for the actions of the great many chrismated Russian Orthodox in the Soviet Army during the pogroms.

How many of them were christmated apostates? Lenin himself was chrsimated.
And their wasn’t much left of the synod at the time in question (three bishops). Certainly not in a position to carry out the actions that are recorded regarding the Ustashe in the link.

It matters little whose church they attended… they neither reflected particular church policy nor universal church policy.

I’ve often said that neither Trudjman nor Milosevich had seen the inside of a church for decades. (oddly, they shared much: Milosevich’s parents killed themselves, and Trudjman’s parents died in a murder suicide. Trudjman claimed the Ustashe killed them, but after independence the official version became, and remains, that the communists did it).

So if a Catholic Croat converted to Orthodoxy, he would become a Serb? And vice-versa?

Or am I misunderstanding your point? :confused:

Not necessarly, but most of the RC are Croats, and Ortodox are Serbs. In Croatia nation and religion are almost equivallent.

To quote one who did, “NO.”

I thought that was only supposed to happen with us Orthodox (or Orthodox Churches. as some partisans of the Vatican insist we aren’t One Church)?

“My Kingdom is not of this world.” Someone said that.

That’s what I was wondering. It seems that in the “Old World”, ethnicity and religion often are interconnected.

I remember hearing in the news about “Bosnian Serbs”, “Bosnian Croats” and “Bosniaks”, and wondering what exactly the difference was, other than religion and alphabet.

Not necessarily. Seems to me that we Catholics also refer to the "Eastern Churches that are in communion with Rome.

I imagine there are some partisans of either side that like to take potshots when they can. It seems to be the nature of the human beast, not that of the Church – Orthodox or Catholic.

I personally believe there is only one Church, and it is riven. I also believe that Catholicism and Orthodoxy will be reunited. Maybe in a thousand years, maybe tomorrow, depending on the Holy Spirit’s timetable – He has all the time in the world, and ignores our impatiently tapping our feet and pointing irritably at our watches. His Will be done. I just hope that we humans can learn to stop getting in the way. :smiley:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.