Why are so many Evangelicals becoming Orthodox and not Roman Catholic?

[a_priori]

As an Evangelical Anglican, I am clearly grappling with many of these issues. I too have many doubts about Marian piety. For me, there are several aspect of Orthodoxy that make it more palatable than going to Rome:

1. Authority. I like the idea of authority coming from the Holy Spirit, through the laity, which recognises a particular doctrine as being consonant with the Scriptures and the consensus of the Early Church, what the Orthodox group together to define as “Tradition”. The idea of a monarch-like pope as final authority, and speaking infallibly ex cathedra, doesn’t square with my reading of Scripture and the Early Church
2. Organization. I like the conciliar approach of the Orthodox rather than the rigid authoritarian approach of Rome. Granted, conciliar approaches produce friction and disputes, as we see even in the book of Acts. Yet I think it is the more Biblical approach.
3. Filioque. This seems like an arcane issue, but in fact I think the logic of the Orthodox position is compelling, aside from historical arguments for why or why not. If the Holy Trinity is a triangle, by adding the filioque clause to the creed, Rome has inverted the Trinity, putting Jesus and God on top and relegating the Holy Spirit to a position of inferiority. It is argued by Orthodox that this has practical effects, when played out over 1000 years of church history. First, the Holy Spirit has a historically less important role in the RC churches than in the Orthodox Churches. Second, by elevating Jesus over the Holy Spirit, the RC church has implicitly elevated Mary as well and this manifests itself in the extremes of Marianism in the RC church to which you refer.
4. Mary. You refer to your difficulties with this and while some Roman Catholics will gloss over the differences in doctrine between the two churches, Orthodoxy has not succumb to the same elevation of Mary to a almost quasi-divine status as has the RC church. I have not ever seen, for example, an icon of just the Theotokos in an Orthodox Church: she is always holding Jesus. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not think they exist. By contrast, the first thing you see in many RC churches, at least in my country, is a statue of Mary at the front of the Church, sometimes above the Cross! I have absolutely no fear that the Orthodox would adopt ever more elaborate titles for the Theotokos such as Co-mediatrix or Co-redemtrix. I am speaking here more about impressions than fundamental doctrine, which I know is similar, except for the IC.
5. Mystery versus scholasticism. I think the EO, by avoiding the tendency of scholasticism, have avoided wrongly defining several doctrines. For example, I don’t understand why the need for defining transubstantiation as such. The EO position is actually remarkable similar to the Lutheran position of co-substantiation, as has been shown in recent dialogues between the two churches.

I have followed the solid, logical arguments by RCs in favour of purgatory and indulgences. However, defining these as such is unnecessary, especially when these cannot be defended by the consensus of the fathers, in my opinion. If one is going to speculate, as Augustine did regarding purgatory, so be it, but do not elevate this to dogma.

Of course, there are arguments for avoiding Orthodoxy as well: jurisdictional chaos, very foreign and seemingly endless liturgies (albeit beautiful), the “ethnic” nature to many Orthodox parishes. Still, seems more compelling to me if I were to make the switch.

I would love to check out Western Rite Orthodoxy, because it might seem more familiar liturgically to me.

These are many of the things that brought me to Orthodoxy from evangelicalism 15 years ago. It was a tectonic event that was able to pry me out of the evangelical world. I was there for 12 years. But then I came to understand that I simply overshot the runway by going into Orthodoxy. I agree with many of your points here. But the ethnocentrism of my Orthodox experience sucked all the oxygen out of my spiritual life. The excruciating ethnolegalism, kitchen hermeneutics and institutionalized xenophobia made the atmosphere there incompatible with life.

I’ll take the english language, smiling faces, and outreach opportunities of Catholicism over the admittedly tempting apophatism of the East. I can finally smile again in Church. Reciting the Filioque every week is an acceptable trade-off for me to finally, after 50 years in many deserts, feel integrated spiritually.

 

[gregorynyssa]

These are many of the things that brought me to Orthodoxy from evangelicalism 15 years ago. It was a tectonic event that was able to pry me out of the evangelical world. I was there for 12 years. But then I came to understand that I simply overshot the runway by going into Orthodoxy. I agree with many of your points here. But the ethnocentrism of my Orthodox experience sucked all the oxygen out of my spiritual life. The excruciating ethnolegalism, kitchen hermeneutics and institutionalized xenophobia made the atmosphere there incompatible with life.

I’ll take the english language, smiling faces, and outreach opportunities of Catholicism over the admittedly tempting apophatism of the East. I can finally smile again in Church. Reciting the Filioque every week is an acceptable trade-off for me to finally, after 50 years in many deserts, feel integrated spiritually.

I’m glad you are happy where you are and I think switching back and forth should be avoided, however, your experience is not typical, at least in recent times.

There was a big study done a while back which may interest people on here. It is mostly focused on Orthodoxy, though there is some comparison of Orthodox views with those of Roman Catholics. From the summary of this study:

The common stereotype is that the Orthodox Churches in the USA are “ethnic” Churches of certain immigrant communities. The study shows that this not the case anymore. Nine out of ten parishioners in both GOA and OCA are American-born. Further, today, more than one-quarter (29%) of the GOA and a majority of OCA (51%) members are converts to Orthodoxy – persons born and raised either Protestants or Roman Catholics.

If you look at the full report, I’d recommend flipping through to the various bar graph summaries. It has many pages, but you can get the major issues that way and look in the vicinity of the graphs for further explanation of points you may find interesting.

orthodoxinstitute.org/orthodoxchurchtoday.html

 

[Kathy2004]

I’m glad you are happy where you are and I think switching back and forth should be avoided, however, your experience is not typical, at least in recent times.

There was a big study done a while back which may interest people on here. It is mostly focused on Orthodoxy, though there is some comparison of Orthodox views with those of Roman Catholics. From the summary of this study:

The common stereotype is that the Orthodox Churches in the USA are “ethnic” Churches of certain immigrant communities. The study shows that this not the case anymore. Nine out of ten parishioners in both GOA and OCA are American-born. Further, today, more than one-quarter (29%) of the GOA and a majority of OCA (51%) members are converts to Orthodoxy – persons born and raised either Protestants or Roman Catholics.

If you look at the full report, I’d recommend flipping through to the various bar graph summaries. It has many pages, but you can get the major issues that way and look in the vicinity of the graphs for further explanation of points you may find interesting.

orthodoxinstitute.org/orthodoxchurchtoday.html

It appears that evangelical converts are bringing good things to the “Orthodox” Catholic Church, which includes RCC. I accredit much of the changes mentioned in these articles to the unifying of the Church.

There is only one Church!

Thank you for sharing. I did not read all yet but did glance at the summary.

Peace and love in Jesus Christ Our Lord,

Kathy

 

[Kathy2004]

I’ll take the english language, smiling faces, and outreach opportunities of Catholicism over the admittedly tempting apophatism of the East. I can finally smile again in Church. Reciting the Filioque every week is an acceptable trade-off for me to finally, after 50 years in many deserts, feel integrated spiritually.

---

I have to agree with you, although I have not been to an “Orthodox Church.”

I do not mean to offend anyone but I find many people who are focused on pre-vatican II Latin Rite to be ultra-serious, complaining, argumentative, lacking joy and smiles. It reminds me of the pharisees who were so concerned with the washing of hands and outward practices. Jesus told them it is not what goes in that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth. I think this has to do with attitude of smugness, holier-than-thou, etc.

Have you ever seen the movie "Brother Sun, Sister Moon? It is a beautiful movie about St. Francis of Assisi. I love the part where it shows the traditional church very cold and proper and then the chapel that St. Francis rebuilt with the poor, handicapped, animals all singing with joy with a real lamb on the altar. I personally would prefer the latter. Although, I do respect proper form, silence, piety and reverence also. I think there needs to be a balance. Too much concern with outward manifestations quenches the Spirit in my opinion.

Peace in Jesus,

Kathy

 

[a_priori]

I’m glad you are happy where you are and I think switching back and forth should be avoided, however, your experience is not typical, at least in recent times.

Fair point. I didn’t mean to suggest that my experience as a convert to Orthodoxy was universal. Having said that, I spent 12 years in Orthodoxy and experienced it to one degree or another in many different parts of the country and I can tell you that my experience was not unique to me either. My only point is that evangelicals should make sure there is water in the pool before they attempt that jack knife. Most often there probably is water, but sometimes there isn’t and the concrete is hard.

 

[Peter_J]

I do think the Orthodox have a point of the filioque.

Oh, definitely I think the Orthodox have a point, but I think we RCs have a point too.

And it’s unfortunate that Anglicans never re-thought this position,

Right on. As I’ve said before Anglicans (and other Protestants) accept the modification of the Creed, and yet they reject the very authority that authorized that modification in the first place. To me that doesn’t make sense. (I maybe I should say, it doesn’t make good sense. It’s awfully convenient, if you know what I mean.)

Is Purgatory dogma (in the RCC)?

Well, here’s what Dr. Anthony Dragani says on the issue (note the underlined section):

**Purgatory :Could you please explain the differences among Latin theology concerning the Dogma of Purgatory and that of the various Eastern Churches? **

As a general rule, all Eastern Christians do not use the word “Purgatory.” This includes both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. The word “Purgatory” is specific to the Latin tradition, and carries some specific historical baggage that makes Eastern Christians uncomfortable.

In the Medieval West, many popular theologians defined Purgatory as a specific place, where people essentially sat around and suffered. Some theologians went so far as to imply that a literal fire burns those who suffer in Purgatory. It was also popular to tally periods of time that people spent in purgatory for various offences. It is worth noting that contemporary Roman Catholic theology has (thankfully) moved beyond this approach, to a more Patristic understanding of Purgatory.

In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning “purgatory”: 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches agree with the Latin Church fully on both of these points. In practice, we routinely celebrate Divine Liturgies for the dead, and offer numerous prayers on their behalf. We would not do so if we did not agree with the above two dogmatic points.

But again, we do not use the word “Purgatory” for two reasons. First, it is a Latin word first used in the Medieval West, and we use Greek words to describe our theology. Second, the word “Purgatory” still carries specific Medieval baggage that we aren’t comfortable with.

It is noteworthy that my own Byzantine Catholic Church has never been required to use the word Purgatory. Our act of reunion with Rome, “The Treaty of Brest,” which was formally accepted by Pope Clement VIII, does not require us to accept the Western understanding of Purgatory.

Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.”

In the East, we tend to have a much more positive view of the transition from death to Heaven. Rather than “Purgatory,” we prefer to call it “the Final Theosis.” This refers to the process of deification, in which the remnants of our humans nature are transformed, and we come to share in the divine life of the Trinity. Rather than seeing this as a place to “sit and suffer,” the Eastern Fathers of the Church described the Final Theosis as being a journey. While this journey can entail hardships, there are also powerful glimpses of joy.

Interestingly, Mother Angelica has repeatedly expressed a very positive understanding of “Purgatory” being a joyful state, rather than a place of suffering. In some ways her description lines up well with the Eastern understanding of the Final Theosis.

Although we do not use the same words, Eastern Orthodox/Catholics and Latin Catholics do essentially believe the same thing on this important point.

• east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory

 

[Peter_J]

I’m glad you are happy where you are and I think switching back and forth should be avoided, however, your experience is not typical, at least in recent times.

There was a big study done a while back which may interest people on here. It is mostly focused on Orthodoxy, though there is some comparison of Orthodox views with those of Roman Catholics. From the summary of this study:

The common stereotype is that the Orthodox Churches in the USA are “ethnic” Churches of certain immigrant communities.

Yes, I do think the Orthodox tend to get stereotyped in that way.

I sometimes wonder whether much of that stereotype can be traced back to Dr. Scott Hahn’s hugely popular (among American Catholics, anyhow) book Rome Sweet Home (1990), in which he said that the Orthodox Churches are “hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms”.

 

[Gofer]

Oh, definitely I think the Orthodox have a point, but I think we RCs have a point too.

No, the Orthodox have nothing, just an excuse. Still, better being that than Protestant. Nearly there. But why settle for less?

 

[Daedelus76]

In the East, we tend to have a much more positive view of the transition from death to Heaven. Rather than “Purgatory,” we prefer to call it “the Final Theosis.”

Does theosis realisticly have an end? I am tempted to say “no”, at least not in terms of human understanding … would that be heretical? Also, what about Dante’s idea that “heaven” has different levels? I honestly prefer to be vague about that stuff. It’s enough to pray for the dead and figure that God will sort it all out in the end.

I do know the more polemical Orthodox use Purgatory as their whipping boy of an example of the decay of Rome. “We Orthodox don’t believe in an angry God who burns people with fire, Purgatory, and all other Romanisms, etc. etc.”. Then of course later they talk about the “dread judgement seat of Christ”, or devils comming to drag you down to Hell … same difference, different rhetoric and imagery, maybe a little more therapeutic tone (of course, modern Roman Catholic practice has occasionally become more therapeutic in focus).

The Anglicans actually did a study in the '70’s where they concluded that changing the filioque was warranted, but like alot of things out of Canterburry, nothing ever came of it. There would be alot of in-the-pew types that would probably go nuts if the filioque were changed, unaware of how weak the integrity of this practice is. I think your average churchgoer is ignorant of the issue, and if it’s a problem… it’s the other guy’s fault. Of course, the Orthodox position conceals other issues, like ecclessiology and traditions that have grown apart. It was more than just a word, it was also different church cultures and alot of human ego in there.

 

[Hesychios]

Does theosis realisticly have an end? I am tempted to say “no”…

You are correct. A very astute observation.

Dr Dragani speaks only for himself. It is not Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology he espouses here, but Dragani’s theology. I know of no other person who has ever espoused this aspect of dogma before him. He invented it.

This claim of his was confronted many times in the old EC forum, which has since been erased. In fact, I recall that he had been contacted about this and he acknowledged the mistake privately, but it continues to circulate nevertheless (an example of “development of Doctrine?”).

Theosis is a never-ending process, because the gap between the creature of humankind and God is infinite.

This is an example of one of the dangers people of the ‘middle’ sometimes find themselves in. They are highly motivated to harmonize the differences between eastern and western theology for their own reasons. If people resort to this kind of inventiveness they succeed in not finding “common ground” which amazingly no one has noticed before, but the “third way” which will ultimately satisfy no one because it is dishonest.

 

[Kathy2004]

I sometimes wonder whether much of that stereotype can be traced back to Dr. Scott Hahn’s hugely popular (among American Catholics, anyhow) book Rome Sweet Home (1990), in which he said that the Orthodox Churches are “hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms”.

---

I do not think you can blame Scott Hahn for the “stereotype” of ethnic division in the Orthodox Churches.

What about what is happening in Jerusalem at the Holy Sites. I have read that three different ethnic orthodox churches get into fist fights over who has control. Is this a prime example of the problem? What a horrible witness of division to the world.

May the Lord have mercy on us sinners and bring unity to the Church.

 

[SSTeacher]

You are correct. A very astute observation.

Dr Dragani speaks only for himself. It is not Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology he espouses here, but Dragani’s theology. I know of no other person who has ever espoused this aspect of dogma before him. He invented it.

This claim of his was confronted many times in the old EC forum, which has since been erased. In fact, I recall that he had been contacted about this and he acknowledged the mistake privately, but it continues to circulate nevertheless (an example of “development of Doctrine?”).

Theosis is a never-ending process, because the gap between the creature of humankind and God is infinite.

This is an example of one of the dangers people of the ‘middle’ sometimes find themselves in. They are highly motivated to harmonize the differences between eastern and western theology for their own reasons. If people resort to this kind of inventiveness they succeed in not finding “common ground” which amazingly no one has noticed before, but the “third way” which will ultimately satisfy no one because it is dishonest.

Mike,

Good post. But why are you now describing your religion as “Christianity with Eastern Characteristics”?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

The Anglicans actually did a study in the '70’s where they concluded that changing the filioque was warranted,

Interesting, I never heard about that.

Personally, I’d be just as happy – no, happier – if they went the other way, and accepted that the Pope had the authority to change the Creed (without an ecumenical council). But that’s just me.

but like alot of things out of Canterburry, nothing ever came of it. There would be alot of in-the-pew types that would probably go nuts if the filioque were changed, unaware of how weak the integrity of this practice is. I think your average churchgoer is ignorant of the issue, and if it’s a problem… it’s the other guy’s fault. Of course, the Orthodox position conceals other issues, like ecclessiology and traditions that have grown apart. It was more than just a word, it was also different church cultures and alot of human ego in there.

 

[Peter_J]

You are correct. A very astute observation.

Dr Dragani speaks only for himself. It is not Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology he espouses here, but Dragani’s theology. I know of no other person who has ever espoused this aspect of dogma before him. He invented it.

This claim of his was confronted many times in the old EC forum, which has since been erased. In fact, I recall that he had been contacted about this and he acknowledged the mistake privately, but it continues to circulate nevertheless (an example of “development of Doctrine?”).

Theosis is a never-ending process, because the gap between the creature of humankind and God is infinite.

This is an example of one of the dangers people of the ‘middle’ sometimes find themselves in. They are highly motivated to harmonize the differences between eastern and western theology for their own reasons. If people resort to this kind of inventiveness they succeed in not finding “common ground” which amazingly no one has noticed before, but the “third way” which will ultimately satisfy no one because it is dishonest.

Yes, Dr. Dragani has really been a pioneer in explaining Eastern Catholicism to Western Catholics. (I would guess that the majority of the people who recognize his name, recognize it because of the years he spent as the Eastern Catholicism expert for EWTN’s Q&A webpage.) Hence, some of his statements are just a “first attempt”, not a “final draft”.

 

[a_priori]

Yes, I do think the Orthodox tend to get stereotyped in that way.

I sometimes wonder whether much of that stereotype can be traced back to Dr. Scott Hahn’s hugely popular (among American Catholics, anyhow) book Rome Sweet Home (1990), in which he said that the Orthodox Churches are “hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms”.

It should be stipulated that Orthodoxy is filled with dedicated and committed Christians that are making a difference in the world. I have many, many friends still in Orthodoxy whose spiritual example I will never match. I have many friends back in the evangelical world that I will cherish forever. Contention between Christians is certainly nothing new in Christendom.

There are surely deep divisions in Orthodoxy with many occurring along ethnic fault lines. If you aren’t part of a “clan” when you arrive at Orthodoxy, you can sometimes (and in some places) end up feeling like roadkill. Some jurisdictions are more user-friendly for converts than others. Orthodoxy is clearly an amazing place theologically and liturgically. But people have to be where they feel most comfortable in their own skin.

The clockwork, mathematically precise, linear, non-negotiable hermeneutic of dispensational evangelicalism whereby we can know what God “thinks” about every subject is at one end of the spectrum. The apophatism of Orthodoxy where even the questions are different and very little can be known about Him, is at the other end. I think this apophatic approach appeals to evangelicals who are road-weary from having to know all the answers. Orthodoxy lets God be God and us be us. It takes all the heat off and allows us to be the creatures He intended us to be. This is why evangelicals are drawn to Orthodoxy.

It’s just that for some, the boots-on-the-ground reality causes other challenges. But many, if not most, converts to Orthodoxy thrive and lead wonderfully fulfilling ecclesiastical lives. Orthodoxy is wonderful indeed. I just couldn’t go the distance feeling constrained in many ways, so I’m Catholic.

 

[Hesychios]

Mike,

Good post. But why are you now describing your religion as “Christianity with Eastern Characteristics”?

Curiously,
Mick

I am sort of a fickle person, and I tend to make little changes on a whim.

Actually, I was inspired by Peter’s change of his own designation to Christianity! It’s a coincidence that we are both posting on the same thread when you bring this up. I had originally just made it read “Christianity”, but then I remembered about Deng Xiaoping and his description of the PRC market reforms as “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” which is something like an ironically amusing thing to claim.

One thing I want to emphasize more than anything is that we Catholics and Orthodox are Christians above all. This is something that is oftentimes forgotten by observers who notice our particular designations. People tend to pre-judge us - and put is in neat little boxes that they might feel can be conveniently ignored.

And we are all in this together! As someone once said “the hole isn’t just in your end of the boat!” All Christians need to learn to make common cause, we need to find each other. We are snarling away at each other like dogs fighting over the same diminishing scraps of bone.

Perhaps in my own way I am also looking for the elusive ‘middle ground’.

 

[Volodymyr]

It is noteworthy that my own Byzantine Catholic Church has never been required to use the word Purgatory. Our act of reunion with Rome, “The Treaty of Brest,” which was formally accepted by Pope Clement VIII, does not require us to accept the Western understanding of Purgatory.

.

• east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory

I had believed I understood GrekoCatolic english names, but am now confused. I believe that Ukrainian GrekoCatolic Church came from Unia of Brest of 1596 under Polish-litovski Rech’ Pospolita auspices. But the Slovak-Zakarpatska Greko Catolic Church was formed in Hongaria in 1646 at Unia of Uzhorod. This Zakarpatska Church was I have come to believe called Byzantine Church in America. The details of Unia of Uzhorod are very little known - even date of this is debated 1646, 1652 when officially announced. Why only six signatures?? Perhaps this was why such Dragan professor prefers to talk of Unia of Brest.

Dragan {Drakon} is not uncommon Ukrainian name. However, even today in Ukraina and Slovakia these are two different kind GrekoCatolics I believe. In Zakarpatia and Slovakia was always an attempt to fight against Magyarization which was I think not too successful under Greko Catolic auspices, better with Orthodox church. In Halicia was virtually no attempt to combat Polonization. So this took two churches in different directions - Ukrainian GrekoCatolic was quite happy to be accepting Polish influence, but in Slovakia and Zakarpatia was attempt to maintain Rusyn identity against Hongaria Magyars.

If is any Catolic information about Unia of Uzhorod it would be interest to know how history of this is considered by Roman Catolics and what was influence of Hongarian Avstrian government.

 

[Daedelus76]

It
The clockwork, mathematically precise, linear, non-negotiable hermeneutic of dispensational evangelicalism whereby we can know what God “thinks” about every subject is at one end of the spectrum. The apophatism of Orthodoxy where even the questions are different and very little can be known about Him, is at the other end. .

I’ve studied some Orthodoxy, and have some Orthodox friends online… and I can definitely feel the appeal to that. I’m more mystically inclined anyways. A mystical understanding of faith is about the opposite from your average Evangelical, where it’s all about the hard facts, the nuts and bolts… and heaven forbid there’s any grey areas about anything.

As an Anglican… Evangelicals make my skin crawl sometimes, which is one reason being in the Anglican Communion/movement concerns me, because Evangelicals are on the resurgence in Anglicanism, especially in the Global South (and in the UK, though to a lesser extent in the US). The triumphalism and sometimes, fundamentalism, in it all can be creepy.

I asked an Anglican from New Zealand one time, an Evangelical pastor that said that those who don’t believe in Jesus go straight to Hell after they die (and if I questioned this absolute truth, I must be a heretic), what he’d do for a hypothetical mother that he encountered, if she had a son that had died, and they were irreligious… what would he tell her? Would he pray for her and her dead son? He said he honestly hadn’t thought about it. I told him and I wouldn’t have a problem praying for them, that I found nothing unbiblical or heretical about it. He had issues with the idea of praying for the dead in the first place, something that seems more common among Evangelical Anglicans. It’s actually part of the 1979 liturgy here in the US, and sometimes part of the 1928 liturgy. So there’s sometimes an anti-sacramental/anti-catholic tone there.

 

[Peter_J]

I am sort of a fickle person, and I tend to make little changes on a whim.

Actually, I was inspired by Peter’s change of his own designation to Christianity! It’s a coincidence that we are both posting on the same thread when you bring this up.

Aw shucks, lil ol’ me?

I had originally just made it read “Christianity”, but then I remembered about Deng Xiaoping and his description of the PRC market reforms as “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” which is something like an ironically amusing thing to claim.

One thing I want to emphasize more than anything is that we Catholics and Orthodox are Christians above all. This is something that is oftentimes forgotten by observers who notice our particular designations. People tend to pre-judge us - and put is in neat little boxes that they might feel can be conveniently ignored.

And we are all in this together! As someone once said “the hole isn’t just in your end of the boat!” All Christians need to learn to make common cause, we need to find each other. We are snarling away at each other like dogs fighting over the same diminishing scraps of bone.

Perhaps in my own way I am also looking for the elusive ‘middle ground’.

The “Religion: Christianity” may unfortunately confuse some people (especially if they don’t see the part of my profile that says “Location: Roman Catholicism”) but it’s the truth. Christianity is one religion, not two (or three), and Christianity is my religion.

P.S. I wonder if we could get ChristianForums to make a statement endorsing CAF? Maybe not – they probably have a policy against making endorsement like that. Would be nice though.

 

[Hesychios]

I had believed I understood GrekoCatolic english names, but am now confused. I believe that Ukrainian GrekoCatolic Church came from Unia of Brest of 1596 under Polish-litovski Rech’ Pospolita auspices. But the Slovak-Zakarpatska Greko Catolic Church was formed in Hongaria in 1646 at Unia of Uzhorod. This Zakarpatska Church was I have come to believe called Byzantine Church in America. The details of Unia of Uzhorod are very little known - even date of this is debated 1646, 1652 when officially announced. Why only six signatures?? Perhaps this was why such Dragan professor prefers to talk of Unia of Brest.

Dragan {Drakon} is not uncommon Ukrainian name. However, even today in Ukraina and Slovakia these are two different kind GrekoCatolics I believe. In Zakarpatia and Slovakia was always an attempt to fight against Magyarization which was I think not too successful under Greko Catolic auspices, better with Orthodox church. In Halicia was virtually no attempt to combat Polonization. So this took two churches in different directions - Ukrainian GrekoCatolic was quite happy to be accepting Polish influence, but in Slovakia and Zakarpatia was attempt to maintain Rusyn identity against Hongaria Magyars.

If is any Catolic information about Unia of Uzhorod it would be interest to know how history of this is considered by Roman Catolics and what was influence of Hongarian Avstrian government.

You are absolutely correct. I was going to mention this before but I am reluctant to deal with so many broad generalizations in a short time.

Brest was in the kingdom of Poland, modern Belarus now, and the bishops (both Orthodox and Catholic) had to be chosen or meet the approval of the government. Not all of the bishops signed on to that agreement. Interestingly it took another 100 years (four or five generations) before the diocese of Lviv would join, although today it is at the center of that movement. The reason may be that Poland was shrinking, and Greek Catholic priests were migrating west and into the province.

The Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) church, Pittsburgh Metropolia, does not derive from the union of Brest, and the 32 conditions did not automatically apply to the BCC.

The BCC in the USA derives from the Union of Uzhorod in 1646AD, fifty years after Brest, and no Orthodox bishops were involved in the initial agreement. The Hungarian government was keen to draw the Orthodox church into it’s control and persuaded a group of 63 priests to submit. Documentation is sketchy and it might be hard to find the original documents. If anyone has a link I would appreciate it.

Apparently one of the advantages of the Union of Uzhorod was that they received a government salary like the Latin priests, which would have been a big help in such a poor region. For administration they were placed under the Latin bishop of Eger, Hungary, and the Greek Catholic priests were not pastors of their own parishes but assistant pastors of Latin priests. Thus the Greek Catholics were not regarded as a separate church but as a ritual subdivision of the local Latin Catholic church. Latin theology and devotions were gradually introduced. The percentage of the population which adhered to the Greek Catholic ritual tradition steadily declined.

According to the linked article a separate seminary was not erected for them until 1778. One might assume that before this the priests received training at the local monastery or at the Latin seminary (for advanced studies).

One thing known for certain is that the Sub-Carpathian Ruthenians became quite Latinized in this period. One can see the effects of this even today. Many years later there was a reaction to Hungarian domination and the Sub-Carpathian Rusyns tended to become pro-Russian (and a security threat to Hungary).

The Greek Catholics in Galicia to the north (who were from the Union of Brest) tended to be anti-Russian and these opposing sentiments even had an affect on the immigrants to the USA, where the two groups saw each other as rivals forced together by circumstances. Rome eventually established two separate jurisdictions for these groups in the USA (the UGCC and the BCC).