Funny, anyone asks you to back up anything you say you claim their research is bad and that they should go back to it. Why should I play this game with you? Since you never back up what you say I’ll give you the same message, go research it.
I ask you to take the lead on this matter to find out what you are thinking. My thought is that you actually don’t know much of the relevant history, and conjuring some guilt by association.
In terms of my church, Uzhhorod and its daughters, I very honestly don’t think you have much to complain about. For the most part, we were a minority and had governments opposing us in one way or another; that includes the union of Uzzhorod itself. One exception is union in Maramorosh; the Hungarians did help with real pressure from the state to consolidate the Orthodox Rusyns in Transylvania into the Uzzhorod Greek Catholic church.
We also did resist the proselytizing by EOs in the late 19th century. At that time there was concurrent harsh resistance to pan-Slavic Russian Messianism by the Hungarians, but that action probably tended to hinder rather than help our church’s efforts. In the post-Soviet era in Zakarpatskaya and Slovakia there wern’t the difficulties that were reported (but without mush documentaion) in Galicia. (Romania again is a different case, and remains largely unresolved with strong Orthodox and government pressure against the Greek Catholics.)
You may have other events or places in mind; I welcome you to document them, or at least enumerate them. Perhaps you have another particular church in mind. If so direct your criticisms accordingly. I am leary about defending or criticizing the actions of other churches about whose history I am far less knowledgeable.
As I have stated repeatedly at CAF, there is nothing that compares with the brutal liquidation of the our church during the Soviet era. That seems difficult for EOS to accept, but I think it is true. I reviewed a dozen or so previous threads this evening in which the matter of the the liquidation of our church was discussed. Here’s what I found.
The problem discussion typically starts with some insensitive remark, a shot against Greek Catholics, by some EO poster. Some are aggressively polemical. Some are more subtle - just picking at scabs. Some, I think are innocently in the dark. But when the offense is called to their attention, the toe the party line of denial. The resistance to a simple apology is amazing - especially in light of the fact that this is and Eastern Catholic forum. And that is what happened here. You endorsed a statement of Met. Hilarion that continued his aggressive posture against Greek Catholics.
How long would a poster last at an EO board if they either stated or endorsed a statement about the compromised theology of Orthodoxy? Or perhaps questioned whether the Orthodox church should be permitted to Italy or Poland. Yet EOs here accept, defend, and even endorse the corresponding statements against Greek Catholics. Fine, CAF is more accepting. But you probably should restain yourself from calling me spiteful accepting it.
You may think that I should respond to Met. Hilarion (and your quick endorsement of his remarks) only with a statement of my great pleasure in working with the OCA mission. Or of collaborations between Bishop Nicholas of blessed memory and members of my family. Or of the gratitude that I have to three different Orthodox priests who came and chanted Trisagion prayers with my family at my father’s funeral. I am happy to talk of these things. And would love to hear some reciprocity from EOs here about thier work to support Greek Catholics.
But please don’t expect me to remain silent, when, in our own forum, we are treated to statements that not only question our religious way of life, but even question our very right to exist - especially from folks who it is no stretch to assume that they mean serious business on the matter. And please don’t attack me personally by calling me spiteful for responding.
.
