History of the unions


#1

I just want to say Thanks for all the information. Very imformitive to say the least. I am always interested in learning more about the richness of all the various Churches in union with Rome. I think it is what helps us to understand that there can be different ways of understanding what we believe. My only question would be what caused some of the Churches to leav and what caused them to come back into union with Rome. I think this is a very important question as while the Church does hve its problems, why do some decide to leave instewad of trying to sort it all out and find ways to correct what seems to be reasons for not coming into agreement. I think it might be helpful to know.


#2

[quote="spina1953, post:1, topic:346186"]
I just want to say Thanks for all the information. Very imformitive to say the least. I am always interested in learning more about the richness of all the various Churches in union with Rome. I think it is what helps us to understand that there can be different ways of understanding what we believe. My only question would be what caused some of the Churches to leav and what caused them to come back into union with Rome. I think this is a very important question as while the Church does hve its problems, why do some decide to leave instewad of trying to sort it all out and find ways to correct what seems to be reasons for not coming into agreement. I think it might be helpful to know.

[/quote]

The truth is that most Eastern Catholic Church accepted union with Rome because Catholic Monarchs like Sigismund III Vasa forced them to. In some cases Orthodox boys were educated in the West and sent back to the East as a kind of "fifth column" to subvert the Orthodox Churches and bring them into union with Rome. That deception is why the Orthodox are so offended by the Eastern Catholics.

Fr. John


#3

[quote="frjohnmorris, post:2, topic:346186"]
The truth is that most Eastern Catholic Church accepted union with Rome because Catholic Monarchs like Sigismund III Vasa forced them to. In some cases Orthodox boys were educated in the West and sent back to the East as a kind of "fifth column" to subvert the Orthodox Churches and bring them into union with Rome. That deception is why the Orthodox are so offended by the Eastern Catholics.

Fr. John

[/quote]

Fr. John, what do you propose that the Catholic Church should do about the offense that the Orthodox take at the mere existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches?


#4

[quote="frjohnmorris, post:2, topic:346186"]
The truth is that most Eastern Catholic Church accepted union with Rome because Catholic Monarchs like Sigismund III Vasa forced them to. In some cases Orthodox boys were educated in the West and sent back to the East as a kind of "fifth column" to subvert the Orthodox Churches and bring them into union with Rome. That deception is why the Orthodox are so offended by the Eastern Catholics.

Fr. John

[/quote]

Dear Fr. Morris, You did not answer the question, but that's alright. I have read many histories and some say what you have said while others say just the oposite in that there were issues that caued some to leave and also issues that were somehow solved and were reunited. I was looking more to ways of understanding, not an answer that somehow seems to me to be very a negitive response.


#5

Telling them to stop misrepresenting themselves as Orthodox in Communion with Rome and to show proper respect for our existence would make a nice beginning.

Fr. John


#6

They might start by ceasing to confuse the Faithful by claiming that one can be Eastern Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome and by showing proper respect for our existence as the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fr. John


#7

[quote="frjohnmorris, post:2, topic:346186"]
The truth is that most Eastern Catholic Church accepted union with Rome because Catholic Monarchs like Sigismund III Vasa forced them to. In some cases Orthodox boys were educated in the West and sent back to the East as a kind of "fifth column" to subvert the Orthodox Churches and bring them into union with Rome. That deception is why the Orthodox are so offended by the Eastern Catholics.

[/quote]

One problem: that is not the truth.


#8

[quote="frjohnmorris, post:6, topic:346186"]
They might start by ceasing to confuse the Faithful by claiming that one can be Eastern Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome and by showing proper respect for our existence as the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[/quote]

While some people claim this, it is not a claim of the CC. Period.
Proper respect? What chutzpah.


#9

I think your view oversimplifies things just a tad. I believe there are in fact some Greek Catholics who are practically indistinguishable from the Orthodox (I could name names but I won’t).

Having said that, I will concede that the majority of “I’m Orthodox in communion with Rome” claims are problematic.


#10

[quote="frjohnmorris, post:6, topic:346186"]
They might start by ceasing to confuse the Faithful by claiming that one can be Eastern Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome and by showing proper respect for our existence as the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fr. John

[/quote]

Well Fr. John, I think the number of Eastern Catholics who refer to themselves as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" make up a minority, and do no speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. As to your statement "by showing proper respect for our existence as the Eastern Orthodox Church," from my perspective, any problem with lack of respect exists much more among the laity than among the clergy, and it goes both ways.


#11

It most certainly is. Read an objective history of the Union of Brest. Try Jesse Clackson, A History of Russiadcf, pp. 154-155. Orthodox Christians were actively persecuted by the Polish authorities and the supporters of the Union. One supporter of the Union actually had the graves of Orthodox Christians dug up to “purify” the land around the Churches that were forcibly taken from Orthodox. Objective historians will tell you that every word that I wrote was true.

Fr. John


#12

[quote="RyanBlack, post:10, topic:346186"]
Well Fr. John, I think the number of Eastern Catholics who refer to themselves as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" make up a minority, and do no speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. As to your statement "by showing proper respect for our existence as the Eastern Orthodox Church," from my perspective, any problem with lack of respect exists much more among the laity than among the clergy, and it goes both ways.

[/quote]

Enough Eastern Catholics make that claim to misrepresent themselves to confuse the Orthodox Faithful and gain members at our expense. It does go both ways. I do not portray myself or my parish as Catholic. Let the Eastern Catholics cease portraying themselves as Orthodox.

Fr. John


#13

[quote="frjohnmorris, post:11, topic:346186"]
It most certainly is. Read an objective history of the Union of Brest. Try Jesse Clackson, *A History of Russia*dcf, pp. 154-155. Orthodox Christians were actively persecuted by the Polish authorities and the supporters of the Union. One supporter of the Union actually had the graves of Orthodox Christians dug up to "purify" the land around the Churches that were forcibly taken from Orthodox. Objective historians will tell you that every word that I wrote was true.

[/quote]

What you wrote:

The truth is that most Eastern Catholic Church accepted union with Rome because Catholic Monarchs like Sigismund III Vasa forced them to.

The key words here are "most" and "forced".
Can you name the governing Catholic monarchs that and specify the force in the case of most of the ~ 20 Eastern Catholic Churches?
And, as we have discussed before, even at Brest, the "force" was limited as compared to what was happening throughout Europe at that time. It was also very mild as compared to the forced liquidations, in living memory, of Greek Catholic churches.


#14

[quote="frjohnmorris, post:12, topic:346186"]
Enough Eastern Catholics make that claim to misrepresent themselves to confuse the Orthodox Faithful and gain members at our expense. It does go both ways.

[/quote]

Therein lies the rub. To my mind, the problem with "I'm Orthodox in communion with Rome" is that it is usually used as a matter of polemics.

Consider those Anglicans who are called "Anglo-Papalists" ... that phrase *could *be used polemic against Roman Catholics, but in practice (if I'm not mistaken) it almost always shows an affinity for Rome. Conversely, "Orthodox in communion with Rome" *could *show an affinity for Orthodoxy (and again, I won't name names but I could) but in practice it is usually a polemic against the Orthodox.


#15

To be fair, “Eastern Catholic” is often used to mean just us Greek Catholics (excluding the “Oriental Catholics”), which I guess is how Father was using it.


#16

[quote="Peter_J, post:15, topic:346186"]
To be fair, "Eastern Catholic" is often used to mean just us Greek Catholics (excluding the "Oriental Catholics"), which I guess is how Father was using it.

[/quote]

I agree with this statement wholely, often all of Eastern Catholics are grouped as one, which is entirely incorrect. There are twenty-two who most have seperate and individual views on concerning issues. Fr. John stated earlier that most Eastern Catholics state being "Orthodox in communiom with Rome", a Syro Malabar Catholic would look at you funny if you asked if this is their identity. With all due respect, please specify when mentioning Eastern Catholics, we are more than one autonomy.


#17

The Oriental Orthodox went into schism because they rejected the Council of Chalcedon because they thought that it was a surrender to Nestorianism especially the Tome of Leo that was approved by the council. They were also influenced by Dioscorus, who led the Council of Ephesus of 449 that revoked the condemnation of Eutychis the author of the Monophysite heresy which taught that the divine nature of Christ absorbed His human nature.
From our point of view the Eastern Orthodox did not leave Rome, Rome left us. The Popes began to claim universal jurisdiction and authority and when the 4 Eastern Patriarchs refused to submit to papal domination, the Roman Church broke with us. Originally the Pope had a primacy of honor as first among equals and was subject to the decisions of an Ecumenical Council like every other Bishop. The Catholic Church sent missionaries to Bulgaria where they criticized Eastern Orthodox practices and closed the Byzantine Churches in southern Italy forcing the people to adopt Latin practices. Patriarch Michael I wrote a letter defending Eastern practices and closed the Latin Churches in Constantinople. Pope Leo IX sent Cardinal Humbert with a letter demanding that the Patriarch submit to papal authority. Humbert was an arrogant man who alienated the clergy and people of Constantinople. When Patriarch Michael learned that the Pope had died, he refused to deal with the Cardinal because when a Pope dies the authority of his legates ceases. However, on his own authority Cardinal Humbert marched into the Agia Sophia Cathedral and laid a bull of excommunication on the Altar.
Most of the Eastern Catholics submitted to Rome because the areas in which they lived were conquered by Catholic monarchs who persecuted those who refused to submit to the authority of the Pope. As a concession they were allowed to keep their Eastern liturgical customs. Others fell under the influence of Catholic missionaries or youth who were educated in Western Europe and returned to work to bring their Church in union with Rome.

Fr. John


#18

Father why don’t you mention the desecration and sacrilege committed by the patriarch of Constantinople and his party on the Eucharist of Latin Churches in Constantinople by throwing the host into the street and allowing it to be trampled over?

The Byzantine patriarch attacked the Latin churches in Constantinople - Latin-speaking churches which existed since the time of Constantine; and he declared that their Eucharist was invalid because the Romans use unleven (rather than leven) bread – something that the Western Church (along with the Armenian Church) had always done since the time of the Apostles (Jesus Himself used unleven bread at the Last Supper, since it was a Passover feast and there would not have been any leven bread in Jerusalem at the time). But, the Eastern Patriarch Cerularius tried to force the Byzantine rite on the Romans living in the Eastern Empire. So, he took armed soldier into the Latin churches in Constantinople, and had them open the Tabernacles and throw the consecreated Eucharist in the streets. This is a historical fact. It is discussed by both Kallistos Ware and by Meyendorff in their books
catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.php

Or the fact that not 4 but only 3 of these patriarchates (As Alexandria broke communion with the remaining four patriarchates earlier) went into schism with Rome and that in the middle of the second millenium 1 of the 3, Antioch specifically, came back into union with Rome together with its legitimate Patriarch and slight majority of antiochenes?

Or the fact that Rome was not the only guilty party in the schism but both sides were at fault?

Your history is so biased that it one would think Constantinople could do no wrong.:rolleyes:
Sorry to break to truth to you but it was not Cardinal Humbert and the Pope who caused the schism… Cerularius had a part to play too


#19

[quote="Wandile, post:18, topic:346186"]
Father why don't you mention the desecration and sacrilege committed by the patriarch of Constantinople and his party on the Eucharist of Latin Churches in Constantinople by throwing the host into the street and allowing it to be trampled over?

Or the fact that not 4 but only 3 of these patriarchates (As Alexandria broke communion with the remaining four patriarchates earlier) went into schism with Rome and that in the middle of the second millenium 1 of the 3, Antioch specifically, came back into union with Rome together with its legitimate Patriarch and slight majority of antiochenes?
Or the fact that Rome was not the only guilty party in the schism but both sides were at fault?
Your history is so biased that it one would think Constantinople could do no wrong.:rolleyes:
Sorry to break to truth to you but it was not Cardinal Humbert and the Pope who caused the schism... Cerularius had a part to play too

[/quote]

I have seen no credible evidence that anyone desecrated the Latin Eucharist in Constantinople prior to the schism. I find it offensive that you do not refer to Patriarch Michael I by his rightful title. Frankly, reading the letter that Pope Leo IX wrote to him and knowing about the behavior of Cardinal Humbert in Constantinople, I find it rather difficult to blame Patriarch Michael I for the schism. What Roman Catholic sources neglect to mention that the Latin missionaries in Bulgaria started the whole conflict by criticizing Eastern practices, then the Pope closed the Byzantine Churches in southern Italy and also criticized Eastern practices. Patriarch Michael merely defended our customs against unjust criticism from the West. Since historians recognize that many of the accusations made by Cardinal Humbert were false, I suspect that the charge of desecrating the Eucharist falls into this category.
When the Patriarch Cyril V of Antioch went into union with Rome, he vacated the throne of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and created a new Melkite Patriarchate of Antioch. Therefore those who wanted to remain Orthodox appealed to the Ecumenical Patriarch for help, which is in accordance with Canon IX of the Council of Chalcedon, and a new Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was selected. His name was Sylvester. I doubt that a majority of the Orthodox of the Patriarchate of Antioch followed the Melkites into union with Rome. I know that today the Orthodox Antiochian greatly outnumber the Melkites.

Fr. John


#20

I have been thinking about my answer to your question on what caused the division. I wrote an answer hurriedly this morning as I was preparing to take my wife to the eye doctor. She had cataract sugary yesterday.

The easiest way to explain it is that it was a clash between two very different visions of how the Church should operate. The East following the example of the Apostolic Council recorded in Acts 15 as well as the Ecumenical Councils favored a conciliar organization of the Church with a council at every level making the decisions. The highest authority being an Ecumenical Council. According to this understanding The Pope held a primacy of honor as the senior Bishop, but no real authority outside of his own Patriarchate and like all other Patriarchs was subject to the superior authority of an Ecumenical Council.
The West for various historical reasons, developed a different system in which the Popes acted as the ultimate authority in all things and was subject to no higher authority, not even an Ecumenical Council. I do not know how to describe this system, because I have tried and have been reprimanded by the moderator, so I do not know how to describe this in a way that a Catholic wold not take offense, so I will just call it papal authority instead of conciliar authority. for want of better terms.
Thus there were two mutually exclusive views of how the Church should operate. As long as the East remained in the East and the West in the West these two systems were able to function together in relative harmony. However, when the Popes began to try to extend their authority over the Eastern Patriarchs, it led to the controversy that resulted in the schism. There were some theological misunderstandings, but they had not really reached the stage that would have necessarily led to schism had it not been for the other issue of the clash between papal authority verses authority of councils.

Fr. John


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.