Greko Catolic Bishop for Atheni

[Isa_Almisry]

How vulgar to make an accusation of pretense. You make a claim of stolen property, but your claim is totally vague. Who the owned property at the time of the unions?

That would be obviously the Orthodox.

Who built the temples? These are important factors in establishing a real sense of justice, under law. In recent times the situation is more clear. For example, no Orthodox group had any legal rights to the Greek Catholic Cathedral in Uzhhorod.

The status of this cathedral I do not know.

I remember a priestin Ukraine being interviewed when things started opening up in the early 90s. He was at a church that the Moscow Patriarchate had just build, part of the trickle before the flood with the waning days of Communism. At a service he switched the commemoration from the Patriarch of Moscow to the pope of Rome, telling the interviewer “I hear the confessions. I know my people.” Evidently not all, as the service was interupted by members of the congregations reproaching him. Now whose church is that?

There evidently was quite a bit of churches and monasteries involved, because the concessions that the Orthodox were able to get out of the Polish goverment mentioned them. And during the period between the War, tens of thousands joined the Orthodox Church, without the government forcing them. But the new Czech government gave all their properties to the Vatican.

 

[dvdjs]

from dvdjs: Start with Brest. The participating Orthodox Bishops were not duplicated or supplanted; they sought and entered into the Catholic communion. Subsequently they were excommunicated by the EP.

You conveniently omit that those bishops were under the foot of the Polish crown. And, within a short time, their support in the union evaporated.

Under the foot . As I pointed out that so-called foot allowed hierarchs the liberty to say no. This is a crucial point. And the evaporation of support? Are you talking about the conquest by the czar? Odd use of “evaporation”.

They were eliminated outright, as all legal recognition was given to those who submitted. When the Patriarch of Jerusalem secretly consecrated a new Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev and other hierarchs, the Polish king and his nobles refused to recognize their existence.

We were talking about hierarchs. Which hierarch was eliminated? And now you tacitly admit that your original state was way off. Your complaint has shifted 180 degrees. Now you complain not that hierarchs were duplicated, but that there was resistance to duplicating hierarchies.

Even then, the bishops who submitted were supervised by the Latin bishops, and their flock had to pay tithes to both the Eastern and the Latin hierarchies. Hence the reason why a third never submitted, and their numbers swelled.

Aha. So you do understand that submission was not compelled.

from dvdjs:
The same cannot be said concerning the liquidation of the Greek Catholic Churches in the post WWII era.
Exactly the same thing can be said.

from Isa: Exactly the same thing can be said.

Not at all. No hierarch had the liberty to refuse incorporation in orthodox church and liquidation of the Greek Catholic Church. Moreover, Hierarchs, such as Bishop Romzha
were eliminated. And it is these distrinctions that make you suggestion of some moral equivalence so inflammatory.

 

[dvdjs]

That would be obviously the Orthodox.

Sorry, I don’t see this as obvious. I don’t know about what sense of property rights might have been at that time. Or whether temples were in fact property of the state. But there is nothing obvious about it.

The status of this cathedral I do not know.

Indeed.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Sorry, I don’t see this as obvious. I don’t know about what sense of property rights might have been at that time. Or whether temples were in fact property of the state. But there is nothing obvious about it.

It is obvious that every single temple, monastery etc. built and in existence at the time of the “unions” belonged to the Orthodox. Ev-ry sin-gle one. Or do you find it reasonable to sign union agreements with those with whom you are already in union with?

Only the Orthodox were there. No “Eastern sui juris churches.”

“What sense of property rights?” Come now, your Vatican had slugged it out in your Investiture Controversy on this and related issues, and had several “ecumenical” councils over these issues (and even recalled the annulled Constantinople IV). Now if you want to say that the Vatican wasnt’ acting with consistency…

“Property of the state?” That would make the Vatican a hypocrite, and bolster Henry’s (and others’) arguments.

Indeed.

Perhpas you might enlighten us, like a foundation and building date.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Under the foot . As I pointed out that so-called foot allowed hierarchs the liberty to say no.

Sign, because only those bishops who recognize the Vatican will have offiical recognition and civil rights. Some liberty.

And yet two did refuse the sign.

This is a crucial point.

That their Churches were taken from them and given to the “Union?”

And the evaporation of support? Are you talking about the conquest by the czar? Odd use of “evaporation”.

The Orthodox metropolitan turned to Moscow when the Poles refused to give them their rights. So the conquest was caused by the evaporation, and not the reverse.

books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0813507995&id=LACpYP-g1y8C&pg=PA347&lpg=PA347&dq=Union+of+Lublin&sig=jqbrgVMQMeBPzdorAMK3tuMHiFk#PPA474,M1

For one thing, at the time, the Poles had just occupied Moscow, and reached its greatest extent.

We were talking about hierarchs. Which hierarch was eliminated? And now you tacitly admit that your original state was way off. Your complaint has shifted 180 degrees.

How so?

Now you complain not that hierarchs were duplicated, but that there was resistance to duplicating hierarchies.

The Orthodox bishops were ordained to replace those who apostacized to the union. Those who didn’t apostaiczed had been replaced. Do keep up.

Aha. So you do understand that submission was not compelled.

Why, because a third steadfast refused to give in? I don’t buy that from the Muslims who point out to the existence of Christian minorities as proof that Islam is tolerate. I won’t buy it from you.

Not at all. No hierarch had the liberty to refuse incorporation in orthodox church and liquidation of the Greek Catholic Church. Moreover, Hierarchs, such as Bishop Romzha
were eliminated. And it is these distrinctions that make you suggestion of some moral equivalence so inflammatory.

Maybe you should define what you mean by “libery,” because it doesn’t fit mine. Or Mr. Webster’s.

 

[dvdjs]

It is obvious that every single temple, monastery etc. built and in existence at the time of the “unions” belonged to the Orthodox. Ev-ry sin-gle one. Or do you find it reasonable to sign union agreements with those with whom you are already in union with?

You have some presuppositions here that I don’t understand, and make arguments that don’t seem connected to anything.

Going back to an era of monarchy, empire, and “cuius regio, eius religio”, I really don’t know who could be said to own what. Nor do I know how title claims withstood repeated changes of regimes. So I don’t think that there is anything obvious about your claims. No matter how slowly you articulate them.

 

[dvdjs]

[Yada yada yada] … you should define what you mean by “libery,” because it doesn’t fit mine. Or Mr. Webster’s.

As predicted, a reduction to semantics. And shifting sands.

But I think it important to hold the line on such grotesque efforts to blur history and suggest moral equivalence.

Whatever incentives of disincentives were in play at the time of the union of Brest, the fact is that there existed the possibility to say no, and some bishops exercised it. The anti-unions that occurred in the aftermath of WWII entailed incarceration and murder of bishops and no opportunity to say no. The difference is enormous.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You have some presuppositions here that I don’t understand, and make arguments that don’t seem connected to anything.

Since the “Sui juris” didn’t exist, they obviously didn’t have any Churches, monasteries, etc.

I presuppose that nonexistent entities can’t own existing building.

Going back to an era of monarchy, empire, and “cuius regio, eius religio”,

A Western concept. As always, the selective condemnation of “Caesaropapism.”

Empire? The Vatican had already divided the world between Spain and Portugal a century earlier.

Monarchy? Can’t blame them: the Vatican had already slugged it out (and lost) with Henry VIII and Gustav Vasa (whose grandson Sigmund was the one enforcing the “Union of Brest”). If Henry and Gustav were wrong, as the Vatican claimed, then so was Sigmund. Unless hypocrisy is involved.

I really don’t know who could be said to own what. Nor do I know how title claims withstood repeated changes of regimes. So I don’t think that there is anything obvious about your claims. No matter how slowly you articulate them.

Yes, there seems to be a difficulty with grasping the principle of duress nullifying contracts. But only selectively it seems.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As predicted, a reduction to semantics. And shifting sands.

But I think it important to hold the line on such grotesque efforts to blur history and suggest moral equivalence.

Whatever incentives of disincentives were in play at the time of the union of Brest, the fact is that there existed the possibility to say no, and some bishops exercised it. The anti-unions that occurred in the aftermath of WWII entailed incarceration and murder of bishops and no opportunity to say no. The difference is enormous.

Somehow you seem to be laboring under the delusion that incarceration and murder were not in the employ of the Polish crown.

Ever hear of the “Holy Office?”

 

[dvdjs]

Isa,
You seem to be very imaginative in creating ideas about what I might be thinking or have heard about, and responding to those inventions. But that is all nonsense. You are just talking to yourself.

Once more: at Brest the Orthodox bishops were not incarcerated and/or murdered then replaced. But that is what happened in the anti-union after WWII. The difference is huge and needs to be recognized.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa,
You seem to be very imaginative in creating ideas about what I might be thinking or have heard about, and responding to those inventions. But that is all nonsense. You are just talking to yourself.

Once more: at Brest the Orthodox bishops were not incarcerated and/or murdered then replaced. But that is what happened in the anti-union after WWII. The difference is huge and needs to be recognized.

“By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism. It would have been better not to have given us nationwide strife and hatred, and instead to have preserved us from nationwide condemnation.”

March 12, 1622
Letter of Leo Sapiega, Roman Catholic and Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Representative of the Polish Crown
Addressed to Josaphat Kuntsevich

Although I understand that this man is considered a saint by the RCC and that this forum is intended for RCCs of any rite, rather than for EOs, you should be aware that he is not uncommonly referred to as “Josaphat the Malevolent” in EO circles and that his “sainthood” constitutes a very great offense and stumbling block to Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. The reason should be evident from the letter quoted, above-- written by an RC, no less.

You were saying?

 

[dvdjs]

I am well aware of the writings against St. Josaphat. (Only Pope Honorius gets more play from the internet Orthodox.) But again we see shifting sands. You dance around to avoid the point: I object to your post that makes a claim about the * forced supplanting of Hierarchs*, and repeat:

At Brest the Orthodox bishops were not incarcerated and/or murdered then replaced. But that is what happened in the anti-union after WWII. The difference is huge and needs to be recognized.

 

[dvdjs]

I am well aware of the writings against St. Josaphat. (Only Pope Honorius gets more play from the internet Orthodox.) But again we see shifting sands. You dance around to avoid the point: I object to your post that makes a claim about the forced supplanting of Hierarchs, and say one last time:

At Brest the Orthodox bishops were not incarcerated and/or murdered then replaced. But that is what happened in the anti-union after WWII. The difference is huge and needs to be recognized.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I am well aware of the writings against St. Josaphat. (Only Pope Honorius gets more play from the internet Orthodox.)

Leo Sapiega, Roman Catholic and Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Representative of the Polish Crown

Hardly internet Orthodox.

But again we see shifting sands. You dance around to avoid the point: I object to your post about forced supplanting of Hierarchs, and say one last time:

At Brest the Orthodox bishops were not incarcerated and/or murdered then replaced. But that is what happened in the anti-union after WWII. The difference is huge and needs to be recognized.

Perhaps I misunderstand you: are you making an issue that the Orthodox hierarchs were able to escape, and those who wanted to perptuate the “Union of Brest” weren’t. Or perhaps that those heads that Joasaphat chopped off didn’t happen at the time of the signing of Brest, or didn’t have a mitre on them. Indicate this “huge difference” so we may recognize it.

 

[dvdjs]

As I said: I am aware of the writing. As I also said: this writing gets considerable play from the internet Orthodox. The idea that the writer is internet orthodox is your own invented implication, for your own conversation with yourself.

You made a claim about the forced supplanting of Hierarchs. At Brest the Orthodox bishops were not incarcerated and/or murdered then replaced. That is, however, what happened in the anti-union after WWII. The difference is not subtle and does not need clarification.

You may actually prefer to talk about other aspects of the Union - its incentives and disincentives and their coercive effect; its effect on priests, deacons, monastics, and laity. All of that may be relevant to some broader discussion of Eastern Catholic churches, but it is of no relevance to the claim to which objected. And if you cannot recognize the difference that I point out in countering your claim, then there is really no point at all in expanding the discussion.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As I said: I am aware of the writing. As I also said: this writing gets considerable play from the internet Orthodox. The idea that the writer is internet orthodox is your own invented implication, for your own conversation with yourself.

You made a claim about the forced supplanting of Hierarchs. At Brest the Orthodox bishops were not incarcerated and/or murdered then replaced. That is, however, what happened in the anti-union after WWII. The difference is not subtle and does not need clarification.

You may actually prefer to talk about other aspects of the Union - its incentives and disincentives and their coercive effect; its effect on priests, deacons, monastics, and laity. All of that may be relevant to some broader discussion of Eastern Catholic churches, but it is of no relevance to the claim to which objected. And if you cannot recognize the difference that I point out in countering your claim, then there is really no point at all in expanding the discussion.

books.google.com/books?id=9FN9gT7CQw4C&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=union+of+brest+peter+mogila&source=web&ots=PXSVM1kdC2&sig=DHPZ10lU2Tjjv0tm53am4Ytq7NE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA40,M1

Btw, you seem to think that bishops are the Church. Am I correct in so seeing?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I just came across a post of the situation of the churches in Ukraine:
orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,17532.msg254992.html#msg254992

Example: the Quadripartite Agreement (or Commission depending on how you want to label it). This Agreement/Comission had set it up that each former Greek Catholic parish would get to vote on whether they wanted to remain within Orthodoxy or revent back to Greek Catholicism. And the UGC’s pulling out and taking the churches over by force. And, Rome’s silence while this was going on. This is just one of the situations the ROC demands before any discussions take any step forward. Rome consistly agrees to discuss it but then takes it off the agenda forcing the ROC to cancel and look bad in the western press.

January 1990 saw the creation of the so-called Quadrennial Commission, which comprised representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Roman Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Eastern Rite Catholics from Western Ukraine. The Commission began to discuss concrete cases of human rights violations during the campaign launched by the Uniates. In March 1990, the Commission developed basic principles for the distribution of the property between the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox. It was agreed that, where there are two churches, one should be given to the Greek Catholics and another one remain Orthodox; where there is only one church, it should belong to the majority group, which must in this case help the minority find or build a suitable place of worship. However, on 13 March 1990, the Greek Catholics unilaterally left the Commission. From then on the seizure of the Orthodox churches (some of them had belonged to the Orthodox even before the Union of 1596) assumed an avalanche-like character. In many places violent methods were employed by the Greek Catholics as they seized Orthodox churches and expelled parishioners from their places of worship. Tensions between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics led to clashes and mass disorders. By the end of 1990, most churches in Lvov, Ternopol and Ivano-Frankovsk had been captured and by the end of 1991, 597 churches had been taken from the Orthodox.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As I said: I am aware of the writing. As I also said: this writing gets considerable play from the internet Orthodox. The idea that the writer is internet orthodox is your own invented implication, for your own conversation with yourself.

You made a claim about the forced supplanting of Hierarchs. At Brest the Orthodox bishops were not incarcerated and/or murdered then replaced. That is, however, what happened in the anti-union after WWII. The difference is not subtle and does not need clarification.

You may actually prefer to talk about other aspects of the Union - its incentives and disincentives and their coercive effect; its effect on priests, deacons, monastics, and laity. All of that may be relevant to some broader discussion of Eastern Catholic churches, but it is of no relevance to the claim to which objected. And if you cannot recognize the difference that I point out in countering your claim, then there is really no point at all in expanding the discussion.

I just came across this, on a contemporary of Josapht of Polotsk:

Athanasius Filipovich was born in the province of Minsk in 1596. Although his father was a Lithuanian nobleman of modest means, Athanasius acquired an exceptional breadth and depth of learning, including modern and ancient languages, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the works of Western philosophers and theologians. He worked for several years as a private tutor before entering the Monastery of Khutyn near Orsha in Little Russia in 1627. This monastery was deeply committed to the preservation of Orthodoxy in the face of Uniatism. Athanasius was soon ordained a priest. The Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Moghila, gave him the task of restoring the Monastery of Kupyatitsk. Later, Athanasius was appointed Abbot of the Monastery of St Symeon the Stylite in Brest-Litovsk. From then on, he was to be a tireless fighter against Roman proselytism. Over the next eight years, by prayer, preaching and through his writings, St. Athanasius devoted all his strength to the cause of holy Orthodoxy and the plight of the Orthodox faithful, who were suffering great hardship and persecution. During a particularly brutal persecution in 1648, he was arrested along with other Orthodox leaders, and was tortured and killed by the authorities of the Polish-Lithuanian government. According to the Synaxarion of Ormylia Monastery, “They threw his decapitated corpse into a pit, where it was found some time later incorrupt. In the years that followed, the relics of the holy Martyr worked many miracles.”

Saint Athanasius is commemorated on September 5.

I’m not quite sure again of what you are claiming: that the union of Brest didn’t kill the bishops outright, or not at all? Or that no bishop was killed, or that no one was killed?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Recover our Chruches? Hmmmm. Statement? Threat? Promise?
What about those Churches taken at the time of the “union?” Can the Orthodox recover them? Keep them?

Normally their is more nuance in your polemic…

But this is shear guile.

If you don’t know by now what we are talking about when we talk about the recovery of churches VERY CLEARLY STOLEN FROM US within the lifetime of a generation still living…

Well I can only conclude what I always suspect. You are hear only for polemic sport.

Give us a break.

 

[Tidus]

Can we get this back?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Nevsky_cathedral_warsaw.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nevsky_Cathedral,_Warsaw

Raise an army an conquer Poland, than you can build it even taller so it will dominate the skyline like the old days before Warsaw had tall buildings and then use it as a sign and symbol of foreign authoritarian domination and suppression of local culture just like what the Russians did. It would be just like building a giant memorial to German world war 2 veterans in modern Tel Aviv