What we see taking place here is a battle…for the soul of eastern Catholicism.
There are some 16 million Eastern Catholics, only a couple of per
cent of these in the US. And here, there are there are perhaps a dozen regular posters who identify as Eastern Catholics. There are many ways that one might be tempted to characterize the discussion of these few souls, but “battle…for the soul of eastern Catholicism.”? Leave it out.
Let me be frank about this. When the union of Brest was crafted (one example, every church was different), these rank and file Byzantine Christians were not ‘eastern Catholics’ in the sense we have today. They were Orthodox. They were accepted whole and entire into communion with Rome in their Orthodox mindset and belief system.
Every church was and is different. But do you really think that the UGC’s are really so different then and now? Can we look at UOC-KP as a comparison? How different are the UGCC and UOC-KP? The salient fact is that people of the union were Easterners protruding into Western lands and living among Westerners. That fact has had assimilatory effects (and counter-assimilatory) effects on both EC and EO’s.
They knew nothing…nothing, of Purgatory, the Latin concept of Original Sin…etc, etc, etc. That’s to say nothing of such concepts as Universal Jurisdiction and Papal monopoly over the infallibility of the church (which were but the gleam in somebody’s eyes back then).
I think that you may be largely correct about our lack of knowledge, but probably for the wrong reasons. The real reason is simply that was a general lack of education or a sense that this was the key to salvation. We had our liturgical practice, which we did and continued to do well. It was what we knew, what we loved, and how we loved.
That means that we might not have know about the discussion between East and West on esoterica of purgatory, but we did pray for the dead with conviction that these prays would be efficacious. On original sin, I really don’t know. And we probably didn’t think much about the universe of jurisdiction, but we have notions of the idea of primacy and authority within our regions. As to the"papal monopoly over the infallibility", well I don’t know anyone who knows about that.
It also means that we probably, knew nothing nothing about hesychasm, essence and energy distinctions, neo-patristic views of original sin (and polemics on western views) , soft-pedaling on the fearsome judgment of God (and polemics on western views), and all sorts of other ideas of today’s book learned EO’s. We were not 20th century (American) Orthodox.
We were not theologians in the contemporary sense (both Catholic and EO). We were people who loved to pray. We were humble before the awesome mystery of God, and were not inflated disputants on matters that just didn’t seem connected to the key issues of loving God, avoiding sin, and doing some good.
And I think this characterization still holds true, at least among the best of us.
Thus, they were not Catholics in the modern sense, or even in the 16th century sense. They were in communion with Rome though.
I am not so sure. What I described about us probably applied equally well to Pasteur’s Breton woman, and many other “good people” of the West.
Then followed a long period of assimilation into Latin theological perspectives and attitudes. Accomplished mostly by introducing Latin religious orders to teach in the seminaries, and the sending of new generations of priests into the hinterland to “complete” the conversion process
“Accomplished”. Aha a plot! Well, yes, we must admit that part of the coercion and bribery of the unia was better integration into the developing systems of scholarly activity in the West. And obviously, we could not get instructors from Russian Orthodox seminaries. And yes, how odd that we would send seminary educated priests to our people.
We also know most of the people (they must number a good 80 million at least) who are descended from the people of that Union are not under submission to, nor any longer in communion with Rome today. When they returned to Holy orthodoxy, they did not require any kind of extensive catechetical program, they already knew the theology.
So apparently, the plot wasn’t so thick after all.
I would like to see where the 80 million at least figure comes from. And it would be nice, in the interest of the Truth, that you point out that this “return” overwhelmingly involved force, and did not allow for choice.
Your point about the manner of reception of Greek Catholics, however, is an excellent one that I often make. Clearly, the normal way of receiving Catholics into Orthodoxy, involves neither baptism nor chrismation, just confession and communion in one’s own parish that had been laid claim to by Orthodox.
This means, ISTM, that means that our excommunication from Orthodoxy is not about what we believe, and the EO churches fully understand that. Hospodi Pomiluj.
And then you seem surprised when people find your posts polemical.