OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 07:57:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox church came to eastern  (Read 4225 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
anbu2020
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: no
Jurisdiction: cristian
Posts: 2


« on: August 20, 2010, 07:48:14 AM »

Orthodox church came to eastern Slovakia along with communism. Until then eastern slovak rusyns were greek catholics. So her grandma, and my grandma, even my father were baptized in greek church. When communism came to Slovakia the people were forced to convert to orthodox believers.



Edited for spam - mike

« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 07:59:24 AM by mike » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2010, 08:52:37 AM »

And what were they before they were forced to be Greek Catholic?
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,875


« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2010, 09:04:12 AM »

I believe the churches were used as pawns in a political power game in this instance by secular authorities.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2010, 11:05:34 AM »

Just goes to show that no one causes Christians more suffering than other Christians. Tongue
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2010, 11:27:31 AM »

The Rusyns were embracing Orthodoxy around the same time they were in America. Somewhere here (I'm not going to bother with the search engine), I've posted on the persecusion of the Orthodox in Galicia (there was no Slovakia at the time) by the Austrian Hungarians, the martyrdom of St Maxim Sandovich in at Talerhof concentration camp in 1914, etc.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2010, 01:56:15 PM »

And what were they before they were forced to be Greek Catholic?

Very good point.  They were Orthodox of course and forced to become Greek Catholic.  It all depended on the ruler in power.

Interestingly enough, theere were Rusyny who moved to waht is now Serbia, also part of the Austrian Empire and returned to Orthodoxy.  The university in Novi Sad has a centre for the study of Rusyny in Serbia.

In 1862, the Edict of Toleration of Austria allowed individuals to be openly Orthodox legally.  But the Austrian Empire was divied between Hungary & Austria in what was called "The Dual KIngdom" and Eastern Slovakia unfortunately, was under Hungarian domination which was harsher than Austrian in terms of national/ethnic and religious  freedoms.  For example, in Eastern Slovakia children were forced to have their education in Hungarian and the Greek Catholic intelligentsia conceded to Magyarization.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2010, 02:19:54 PM »

The Rusyns were embracing Orthodoxy around the same time they were in America. Somewhere here (I'm not going to bother with the search engine), I've posted on the persecusion of the Orthodox in Galicia (there was no Slovakia at the time) by the Austrian Hungarians, the martyrdom of St Maxim Sandovich in at Talerhof concentration camp in 1914, etc.

He was executed in Gorlice.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2010, 06:57:07 PM »

And what were they before they were forced to be Greek Catholic?

The Union of Uzhorod was not forced upon the Rusyns.  While under a Catholic Emperor, the local Count was a Hungarian Calvinist.  A motivator for reunion with Rome was the Calvinizing promoted by the Counts.  To counteract this and improve their lot, 63 Rusyn priests proclaimed union at Uzhorod.  Rome and Vienna had no part in it.  Rome was not even informed until years afterward.

That said even if in other Unions force was used to convert ones great, great, great grandparents does that make it right to use force to convert the descendents back?  Also some Slovak Greek Catholics were never Orthodox, but are the descendents of Slovak Lutherans who upon reconversion chose the Greek rather than Latin tradition.

St. Maxim Sandovich was killed by Austrian soldiers.  Blessed Theodore Romzha was killed by Russian soldiers.  Should either Church be held responsible for the acts of secular forces they didn't control?

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,625


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2010, 07:48:32 PM »

Even if the unions were forced upon the people, which is quite true, it was still possible to refuse them, as did most of the Romanians in Transylvania, a province of the same empire, as Galicia etc.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2010, 07:51:10 PM »

And what were they before they were forced to be Greek Catholic?

The Union of Uzhorod was not forced upon the Rusyns.  While under a Catholic Emperor, the local Count was a Hungarian Calvinist.

Yes, the same situation prevailed in Transylvania: the Emperor, darling of the Vatican, depended on the Orthodox masses to rein in the Prince of Transylvania, who in turn tried to coopt the Orthodox as a counter weight to the Emperor.  The Orthodox had a Calvnist supervisor who issued instructions which were ignored.  Then the Emperor decreed that the Orthodox were united to the Vatican, who wasn't so benigh a master.  In both Ruthenia and Transylvania, the Orthodox clergy were heavily taxed, subject to corvee  and all the other joys of serfdom.

So no, fear of Calvinism wasn't the reason.

Quote
A motivator for reunion with Rome was the Calvinizing promoted by the Counts.  To counteract this and improve their lot, 63 Rusyn priests proclaimed union at Uzhorod.  Rome and Vienna had no part in it.  Rome was not even informed until years afterward.

Hmmm. So the local count immediately took a hands off approach because the Orthodox submitted to the Vatican?  The Count just called off the Calvinising program because while the Orthodox were fair game, those in communion with the Vatican were not?  No assurance/threat of protection from Rome or Vienna, the Orthodox just did it, huh?  Quite a feat for an agreement which isn't even on paper (in either the church nor civil archives).

Btw IIRC evidenty the petition for "union" was from several dozen priests. Funny how that is not brought up by those who decry priests in the back to Orthodoxy movement.

Quote
That said even if in other Unions force was used to convert ones great, great, great grandparents does that make it right to use force to convert the descendents back?

No, but force shouldn't be used to prevent the great, great, great grandchidren from converting back.

Quote
Also some Slovak Greek Catholics were never Orthodox, but are the descendents of Slovak Lutherans who upon reconversion chose the Greek rather than Latin tradition.

Uh-huh. What was the reason for that?  The closeness of Lutheranism to Orthodox rites?  Any information on these communities?

Quote
St. Maxim Sandovich was killed by Austrian soldiers.  Blessed Theodore Romzha was killed by Russian soldiers.  Should either Church be held responsible for the acts of secular forces they didn't control?
Depends: were the Austrians in communion with the Vatican?  Were the Russians (and are you sure they were Russian?) in communion with the Patriarch of Moscow?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 07:56:42 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2010, 08:11:27 PM »

Even if the unions were forced upon the people, which is quite true, it was still possible to refuse them,

Depends on what you mean by refuse.  If accepting a heterodox supervisor (who issued your official catechism), having your Churches confiscated and burned down, your clergy expelled and exiled, and your existence at best tolerated (the Edict of Turda caled for the extermination of the "schismatic Vlachs" i.e. the Orthodox Romanians) etc., yes it was possible to refuse.


Quote
as did most of the Romanians in Transylvania,

Transylvania lucked out by being a vassal of the Ottoman and at times eeking out an independent existence, and the ruling class playing out their Western schisms: Lutherans, Calvinists, Counter-Reformation, etc.:Transylvania has the dubious distinction of being the only Unitarian state, something the Unitarian Universalists (at least in the US) are quite proud of.  It was the sheer numbers of the Romanians, and their steadfastness to the Faith they received, that got them through it.


Quote
a province of the same empire, as Galicia etc.

Bucovina when it became autocephalous, had a Romanian majority. By the time that empire fell, its majority was Ruthenian/Rusyn.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,625


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2010, 09:32:02 PM »

The people did not understand the dogmatic differences. I read enough memories written to the imperial authorities by country priests on behalf of the peasants. What they  say is that they refused to accept a faith they didn't inherit from their parents and ancestors. People still think like this today. I've heard many say it was a sin to change one's religion, no matter what that was. You were born into it, you are supposed to die into it.
What saved them was their "backwardness", their collectivist thinking, their lack of individualism, the mark of modernity.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2010, 10:43:34 PM »

So no, fear of Calvinism wasn't the reason.

Yes, it was part of the reason.  Bishops of Mukachevo wrote of their fears of priests with Calvinist sympathies.

Hmmm. So the local count immediately took a hands off approach because the Orthodox submitted to the Vatican?  The Count just called off the Calvinising program because while the Orthodox were fair game, those in communion with the Vatican were not?  No assurance/threat of protection from Rome or Vienna, the Orthodox just did it, huh?  Quite a feat for an agreement which isn't even on paper (in either the church nor civil archives).

Btw IIRC evidenty the petition for "union" was from several dozen priests. Funny how that is not brought up by those who decry priests in the back to Orthodoxy movement.
Yes, unfair but true.  I did not say they were not assured protection from Emperor, they were.  I said the union was not instigated by him or Rome.  The agreement is on paper in church and civil archives.  The text is below.

Uh-huh. What was the reason for that?  The closeness of Lutheranism to Orthodox rites?  Any information on these communities?
The same reason Magyar Calvinists chose the Greek rite on conversion. The ability to continue Liturgy in the vernacular or the something close to it.  Slavonic for the Slovaks and Magyar for the Magyars.

Depends: were the Austrians in communion with the Vatican?  Were the Russians (and are you sure they were Russian?) in communion with the Patriarch of Moscow?

Don't know to all three.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2010, 10:47:21 PM »

Union of Uzhorod

By the grace of Christ, elected most holy Father and universal Patriarch.

We priests of the holy Greek rite, inhabitants of the noble and apostolic kingdom of Hungary, situated through the Districts specified with our signature, realizing that the sacrament of the king is to be hidden, but that the works of God are to be revealed and to be shown to all peoples more clearly than the sun, seeing that they are such that through them the ineffable goodness and clemency of our most merciful God towards rational creatures is wont to be made manifest. According to this principle and this angelic rule we declare to Your Holiness, we preach and we lift up to the heavens with titles of most devout praise before the whole world. What is that [that we declare]? The grace of our God and Savior freely poured out among us, by which working in us and foretelling most lovingly the salvation of our souls, we, having abandoned and driven from our hearts the Greek schism, are restored and affianced again to the Immaculate Virgin Spouse of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is the holy Roman Church, hitherto abominated by us and held in hatred without any cause. This same return of ours, indeed, was accomplished in the year of salvation one thousand six hundred and forty-six, on the twenty-fourth day of April, while Ferdinand III the most sacred Emperor of the Romans was ruling, in the Latin castle-church of Uzhorod situated on the estate of the most illustrious Count George of Humenne, in this fashion:

The bishop of Munkach, Basil Tarasovic, who has already departed this life, when following the party that was both schismatical as well as heretical, he had broken the bond of holy Union, publicly abandoned the Catholic Church. The venerable father in Christ, George Jakusic, bishop of Eger, now resting in Christ, considering this, having with him the Reverend Basilian fathers summoned for this purpose, Father Peter Parthenius, who today is our bishop, and father Gabriel Kosovicky, most courteously invited us by letter to Uzhorod, and after seasonable discourse from the aforesaid Fathers about holy Union, he accomplished, with the Holy Spirit disposing us for it, what he purposed, and appointed the day dedicated to St. George the Martyr for making the profession of faith.

On that day we sixty-three priests came together and followed the aforementioned most Reverend Bishop of Eger to the church named above. So after the enactment of the mystery of the bloodless sacrifice performed in our Ruthenian tongue, and after sacramental expiation of their sins by some of the priests, we pronounced the profession of faith in an audible voice according to the prescribed formula, namely:

We believe all and everything that our Holy Mother the Roman Church bids us believe. We acknowledge that the most holy Father Innocent X is the universal Pastor of the Church of Christ and our Pastor, and we with our successor’s desire and wish to depend on him in everything; with, however, the addition of these conditions:

First: That it be permitted to us to retain the rite of the Greek Church;
Second: To have a bishop elected by ourselves and confirmed by the Apostolic See;
Third: To have free enjoyment of ecclesiastical immunities.

To these the most Reverend bishop acceded without difficulty. The whole of this, too, the most Illustrious Benedict Kisdi, Bishop of Eger, with his Vicar General, and the Reverend Father Thomas Jaszbereny, religious of the Society of Jesus, being present ratified in the year one thousand six hundred and forty-eight. This business of ours received very great support from the paternal solicitude both of the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Primate of Hungary George Lippay, Archbishop of Esztergom, twice invoked by us through a mission undertaken by the aforesaid Reverend Basilian Fathers, and of the Most Reverend Bishop of Vacz, Matthias Tarnoczy also, to both of whom we are for ever obliged.

Bringing these events before the notice of Your Holiness we unanimously and humbly beg Your paternal benediction, the advance of our cause and the confirmation of the Most Reverend father Peter Parthenius elected by us as bishop.

In Uzhorod, in the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-two, the fifteenth day of January.

The most humble servants of Your Holiness, priests of the Greek rite,

Alexius Ladomersky, archdeacon of Makovica
Stephen Andrejov, archdeacon of Spis
Gregory Hostovicky, archdeacon of Humenne
Stephen, archdeacon of Seredne
Daniel Ivanovic, archdeacon of Uz
Alexius Filipovic, archdeacon of Stropkov

From The Union of Uzhorod by Michael Lacko SJ, Published by the Slovak Institute, Cleveland-Rome, 1976, Pages 107-109
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2010, 11:41:15 AM »

And what were they before they were forced to be Greek Catholic?

The Union of Uzhorod was not forced upon the Rusyns.  While under a Catholic Emperor, the local Count was a Hungarian Calvinist.  A motivator for reunion with Rome was the Calvinizing promoted by the Counts.  To counteract this and improve their lot, 63 Rusyn priests proclaimed union at Uzhorod.  Rome and Vienna had no part in it.  Rome was not even informed until years afterward.

That said even if in other Unions force was used to convert ones great, great, great grandparents does that make it right to use force to convert the descendents back?  Also some Slovak Greek Catholics were never Orthodox, but are the descendents of Slovak Lutherans who upon reconversion chose the Greek rather than Latin tradition.

St. Maxim Sandovich was killed by Austrian soldiers.  Blessed Theodore Romzha was killed by Russian soldiers.  Should either Church be held responsible for the acts of secular forces they didn't control?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Ever wonder why only 63 out of hundreds of priests signed the union?  Or why there were no bishops who signed?  Could it be because the Orthodox bishops were all in jail?  And, 63 out of how many hundreds of priest is hardly a majority.  What happened to the 'majority rules' concept if this was no a forced union?  My gradparents came from this union.  They, along with each generation that preceded them, taught their children that Orthodoxy was their true faith and they were to go back if and when they found themselves in a place WHERE THEY WERE ONCE AGAIN FREE TO PRACTICE THEIR ORTHODOX FAITH.  This is what they did along with thousands of others around the turn of the century.

Othodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2010, 11:55:02 AM »

The Rusyns were embracing Orthodoxy around the same time they were in America. Somewhere here (I'm not going to bother with the search engine), I've posted on the persecusion of the Orthodox in Galicia (there was no Slovakia at the time) by the Austrian Hungarians, the martyrdom of St Maxim Sandovich in at Talerhof concentration camp in 1914, etc.

He was executed in Gorlice.

Thanks Mike for the correction.  It is important to get our facts straight.

For example, I seen on web pages written in English exaggerated numbers of Rusyn Orthodox held in Talerhof.  The number of Rusyns in their native land is small and the number of Orthodox in 1914 was small.  Also the Austrains kept very good records of everything they did.  That's why people doing geneological research always use their records.

The Rusyn Orthodox were arrested and held in very poor conditions that led to sickness and even death in Talerhof because the Austro-Hungarian government thought (wrongly) the Rusyn Orthodox were all working for the Russian government.  For some Rusyn Orthodox (the intellectuals) there were a tie between the Russophile Movement and  a return to Orthodoxy.
During the first World War when the Russian troops occupied Lviv, then a part of the Austrian Empire, the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Metropolitan Andrii Sheptytsky was arrested and taken back to Russia.  Recently a book was published that showed that Sheptytsky was supporting a Hapsburg prince who had a movement to make him "king of Ukraine" and to make all Ukraine Ukrainian Catholic in religion.  That was why Sheptytsky was arrested: for political resaons.  Needless to say, the Hapsburg prince had no support at all in the rest of Ukraine.
Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2010, 02:14:17 PM »

And what were they before they were forced to be Greek Catholic?



That said even if in other Unions force was used to convert ones great, great, great grandparents does that make it right to use force to convert the descendents back? 

St. Maxim Sandovich was killed by Austrian soldiers.  Blessed Theodore Romzha was killed by Russian soldiers.  Should either Church be held responsible for the acts of secular forces they didn't control?

Fr. Deacon Lance
1.  No in my books (and I am Orthodox), force should never be used to make people convert from one church to another church.  At the moment Slovakia ia an independent country and a democracy so we have Rusyns in both churches as a matter of choice.

2.  No in my books, neither church should be held responsible.  It was the Austrian government and the Communist geovernment of the USSR which were responsible.
Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2010, 02:36:47 PM »


Bucovina when it became autocephalous, had a Romanian majority. By the time that empire fell, its majority was Ruthenian/Rusyn.

This had nothing to do with the Rusyns in Slovakia, just an historical correction: Bukovyna (the Northern part)  was mentioned in the Primary Chronicle written by St. Nestor as part of Kyivan Rus.  In 1444 it became part of Moldavia and eventually a vassel of the Ottoman Empire.  It was the Austrians who took it over from the Turks in 1774/75.
When the Orthodox Church in Bukovyna became autocephalous it was by a declaration of the Austrian government and just for clarification, Bukovyna as a crown land of the Austrian Empire never had a Romanian majority.  Just check any of the cesus reports of the Austrians.  The Romanians and Ukrainians were almost equal with Ukrainians having a slight majority.  The Austrians brought in a lot of German speaking immigrants from other parts of the Empire to work in the mines in Bukovyna, the the government and the newly established university.  Also a significant Jewish population moved in so that by WW1 the Jews made up 45% of the capital city.  Armenians also moved it when Bukovyna was connected with Turkey.
The Church services in Bukovyna under the Austrian Empire were celebrated in Church Slavonic.  Thelogy classes in the Faculty of Thelogy at the University of Chernivsti were taught in German, the offical government language.  I have even seen the text books translated into German and printed for the students.
In the seminaries all seminarians had to learn both Romanian and Ukrainian in order to be able to preach sermons & hear confessions in both languages.  The Metropolitans of Chernivsti & Bukovyna alternated between the 2 ethnic groups.  All in all it was a very fair system.
The University of Toronto library has all the microfilms from newsapers in Bukovyna from the Austrian era.  You can read the church newspaper for the Ukrainians in Bukovyna called "Pravoslvna Bukovyna".

But back to Eastern Slovakia under discussion.  Unfortunately, this area was previously part of Hungary and when the Austrian Empire became a dual monarchy, Slovaka was in the Hungarian part of the Empire which was not as tolerant as Austrian rule.  That explains the persecution of the Rusyns converts to Orthodoxy.  People who converted to Orthodoxy in Eastern Slovakia were placed under the jurisdiction of the Serbs who were resonsible for all Orthodox in the Hungarian part of the Dual Monarchy.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,625


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2010, 04:38:10 PM »

Well, Romanians/Vlachs were under direct Hungarian rule, just as the Rusyns, but most of them stayed Orthodox. and they didn't enjoy the privileges the Serbs had, either.
So, I am not completely sure that being subject to Hungarians fully explains this.
Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2010, 12:19:12 PM »

Well, Romanians/Vlachs were under direct Hungarian rule, just as the Rusyns, but most of them stayed Orthodox. and they didn't enjoy the privileges the Serbs had, either.
So, I am not completely sure that being subject to Hungarians fully explains this.

It was only when Transylvania became part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the "Dual Monarchy" was established, that Greek Catholic Church was forced upon the Romanians living in Transylvania.  The Romanians resisted by sending candidates to the priesthood to Serbia to be ordained Orthodox priests. The liturgy was celebrated in Church Slavonic.  The Romanian Greek Catholics began to celebrate the liturgy in Romanian. Transylvania was an area of mixed population of Hungarians, Swabian Germans and Romanians.  By the time of the Dual Monarchy, the Romanians made up the lower stratums of society with little political power.

Have you read any of Magocsi's books on the history of the Rusyns?  In Eastern Slovakia, the Rusyns were the poorest of the poor with no political power at all.  They were an ethnic minority and poor.  The Hungarians were trying to assimilate all ethnic groups in Eastern Slovakia.  For example, the language of instruction in the village schools was Hungarian. 
Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Denver
Posts: 2,362



« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2010, 06:32:00 PM »

Just goes to show that no one causes Christians more suffering than other Christians. Tongue
sad, but true Undecided
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2010, 09:13:56 PM »

Ever wonder why only 63 out of hundreds of priests signed the union?  Or why there were no bishops who signed?  Could it be because the Orthodox bishops were all in jail?  And, 63 out of how many hundreds of priest is hardly a majority.  What happened to the 'majority rules' concept if this was no a forced union?  My gradparents came from this union.  They, along with each generation that preceded them, taught their children that Orthodoxy was their true faith and they were to go back if and when they found themselves in a place WHERE THEY WERE ONCE AGAIN FREE TO PRACTICE THEIR ORTHODOX FAITH.  This is what they did along with thousands of others around the turn of the century.

That only 63 priests were there shows no one was forced to go.  There was only one Orthodox bishop involved, Bishop Basil Tarasovic, who had proclaimed his own union in 1642.  The Calvinist Prince Rakoczy refused to allow him to return to his see in Mukachevo and installed the Calvinizing priest John Jusko in his place.  To regain his see and facilitate future union, he renounced his own personal union.  He however nominated pro-union priest Peter Parthenius Petrovic as his successor before he died.  He was elected at a gathering of 400 priests, receiving 370 votes, (quite a majority) and was ordained bishop by the sympathetic Orthodox Metropoltain of Alba Iulia.  That however did not stop the Racoczys from appointing an Orthodox bishop, Joannicius Zejkan.

Which leads us to your oft cited claim the Greek Catholics were just Crypto-Orthodox waiting for a chance to be free.  If that were true the Greek Catholics would have simply gone to the Orthodox off the boat in America, which we know did not happen.  It took the abuse of Latin hierarchs and decades for appreciable numbers to join Orthodoxy.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2010, 09:35:23 PM »

Ever wonder why only 63 out of hundreds of priests signed the union?  Or why there were no bishops who signed?  Could it be because the Orthodox bishops were all in jail?  And, 63 out of how many hundreds of priest is hardly a majority.  What happened to the 'majority rules' concept if this was no a forced union?  My gradparents came from this union.  They, along with each generation that preceded them, taught their children that Orthodoxy was their true faith and they were to go back if and when they found themselves in a place WHERE THEY WERE ONCE AGAIN FREE TO PRACTICE THEIR ORTHODOX FAITH.  This is what they did along with thousands of others around the turn of the century.

That only 63 priests were there shows no one was forced to go.  There was only one Orthodox bishop involved, Bishop Basil Tarasovic, who had proclaimed his own union in 1642.  The Calvinist Prince Rakoczy refused to allow him to return to his see in Mukachevo and installed the Calvinizing priest John Jusko in his place.  To regain his see and facilitate future union, he renounced his own personal union.  He however nominated pro-union priest Peter Parthenius Petrovic as his successor before he died.  He was elected at a gathering of 400 priests, receiving 370 votes, (quite a majority) and was ordained bishop by the sympathetic Orthodox Metropoltain of Alba Iulia.  That however did not stop the Racoczys from appointing an Orthodox bishop, Joannicius Zejkan.

Which leads us to your oft cited claim the Greek Catholics were just Crypto-Orthodox waiting for a chance to be free.  If that were true the Greek Catholics would have simply gone to the Orthodox off the boat in America, which we know did not happen.  It took the abuse of Latin hierarchs and decades for appreciable numbers to join Orthodoxy.

or they needed that wake up call to tell them that they were not "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

The priest who founded the parish where I embraced the Church, was told by his bishop in the old country when he got his papers in Austro-Hungary to go to the Russian bishop, not the Vatican's, when he reached America: "Here we have to be Katolik, in America you don't have to be Katolik."
« Last Edit: August 22, 2010, 09:38:02 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,625


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2010, 12:52:45 PM »

You didn't 'have to be "katolik"' even in the Dual Monarchy (which, btw, Orest, started in 1867), but being catholic carried (sometimes)a few privileges some people weren't willing to live without, although this is less true for the period after 1849, when religious liberty was greatly expanded within the empire.
Around 1830 some villages of the eparchy of Arad (my own and my ancestors' jurisdiction) asked to join the Unia because of the political and economic advantages that carried, at least on paper. They did that, their economic hopes though never came true, so, after about five years they asked to revert to the "non-united Church", which they did, the protestations of the Greek Catholic bishop of Oradea/Nagyvarad notwithstanding .
The point is the empire was not a complete and fanatical dictatorships (Korean style, perhaps).
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #24 on: August 23, 2010, 07:12:23 PM »

Deacon Lance replies:

"Which leads us to your oft cited claim the Greek Catholics were just Crypto-Orthodox waiting for a chance to be free.  If that were true the Greek Catholics would have simply gone to the Orthodox off the boat in America, which we know did not happen.  It took the abuse of Latin hierarchs and decades for appreciable numbers to join Orthodoxy."

Father Deacon:

I'm surprised that you would give such a reply.  As you are aware, there weren't that many Orthodox churches to go to in the beginning of the 20th century when people like my grandparents arrived.  Especially on the east coast where most immigrants settled.
Most of the existing Orthodox Churches were on the west coast.  As soon as they got settled they banned together to return to Orthodoxy. My grandparents returned in 1908 and our home parish was built in 1910. There were two reasons for their return to the faith of the ancestors after they arrived and were settled.  The first came before the abuses by the latin churches and were by people like my grandparents who were smart enough to know they were not really 'Orthodox in Communion with Rome' as they had been told when they lived in the 'old country'.  The second group came later and were a result of the continued abuses of the RCC. and came in the 40's and 50's (the ACROC).

When I was younger I spent hours talking with these people(now long gone).  Depending on what area they came from, their understanding of just what they were was different.  Some (like my grandparents) knew their Orthodoxy had been taken from them, some saw themselves as 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome' (because the Pope was now Orthodox. Some insisted they were Orthodox and would remind me that the word 'Pravoslavny' was used in the Liturgy. Very few knew exactly what the term "Greek Catholic' really meant.  Our next door neighbor remained in the local Greek Catholic Church but hated the Roman Catholic Church and the pope with a passion.  Everytime she would rant about either the pope or the RCC, I would remind her that as a Greek Catholic she was part of the RCC  and under the authority of this pope she hated so much.  She would get livid and call me a lair.  Hey, even today on the internet many of your people still react the same way when they are faced with the reality of just what they are.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2010, 08:43:52 PM »

There weren't many Greek Catholic Churches anywhere either.  The first Greek Catholic parish to convert to  Orthodoxy was Minneapolis in 1891 with St. Alexis Toth.  He helped 16 other parishes convert before his death in 1909.  He certainly came here in 1889 with the intention of being Greek Catholic and only converted when faced with the abuse of Archbishop Ireland.  More parishes converted or split with the issuance of Ea Semper, banning married priests although it was ignored.  ACROD was formed after Cum Dat Fuerit was issued in 1929, again banning married priests which was this time obeyed.  The late joining parishes in the 50s were due to Bishop Nicholas Elko's mandating the New Calendar.

I believe this secret Orthodox theory is what those that converted to Orthodoxy wanted to believe because they couldn't stand the idea their ancestors "sold out" and united with Rome which is understandable but not supported by the facts: Orthodox churches existing along with Greek Catholic ones in Austria-Hungary, no Greek Catholic parishes converting until abused by Latin bishops.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2010, 12:08:46 PM »

There weren't many Greek Catholic Churches anywhere either.  The first Greek Catholic parish to convert to  Orthodoxy was Minneapolis in 1891 with St. Alexis Toth.  He helped 16 other parishes convert before his death in 1909.  He certainly came here in 1889 with the intention of being Greek Catholic and only converted when faced with the abuse of Archbishop Ireland.  More parishes converted or split with the issuance of Ea Semper, banning married priests although it was ignored.  ACROD was formed after Cum Dat Fuerit was issued in 1929, again banning married priests which was this time obeyed.  The late joining parishes in the 50s were due to Bishop Nicholas Elko's mandating the New Calendar.

I believe this secret Orthodox theory is what those that converted to Orthodoxy wanted to believe because they couldn't stand the idea their ancestors "sold out" and united with Rome which is understandable but not supported by the facts: Orthodox churches existing along with Greek Catholic ones in Austria-Hungary, no Greek Catholic parishes converting until abused by Latin bishops.

Can you provide some proof of your statement that Orthodox Churches freely existed along with Greek Catholic Churches in Austria Hungry?  And are you stating that there was a time that Greek Catholics were not abused by Latin Bishops both here and in the 'old country'?

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,625


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2010, 02:19:11 PM »

Of course the Greek-Catholics were favored by the imperial authorities, but that's not the point, since Orthodoxy wasn't forbidden either, and actually existed and even flourished especially later in the 19th century.
There were many instances all throughout the 18th and early 19th century when the "united" clergy was beaten, imprisoned or even killed by the enraged peasant Orthodox population in many places in Transylvania.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 02:35:59 PM by augustin717 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2010, 03:09:45 PM »

Of course the Greek-Catholics were favored by the imperial authorities, but that's not the point, since Orthodoxy wasn't forbidden either, and actually existed and even flourished especially later in the 19th century.
There were many instances all throughout the 18th and early 19th century when the "united" clergy was beaten, imprisoned or even killed by the enraged peasant Orthodox population in many places in Transylvania.

Wasn't forbidden? Then why did Nikolaus Adolf von Bukow march through Transylvania like Sherman to the sea, destroying every Orthodox monastery and hermitage?
http://books.google.com/books?id=fWp9JA3aBvcC&pg=PA197&dq=orthodox+in+Transylvania+von+Bukow&hl=en&ei=0hZ0TImfGcnSngeCz9W7CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=orthodox%20in%20Transylvania%20von%20Bukow&f=false
The Emperor decreed the Orthodox "united." The "schismatic Vlach" Church ceased to offiically exist.  One doesn't forbid what doesn't exist.

Von Bukow did have a lot of trouble, however, with all those non-existent Orthodox Romanians. Hence the push to finish off what the Decree of Turda started and bring reality in line with theory.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2010, 03:13:17 PM »

There weren't many Greek Catholic Churches anywhere either.  The first Greek Catholic parish to convert to  Orthodoxy was Minneapolis in 1891 with St. Alexis Toth.  He helped 16 other parishes convert before his death in 1909.  He certainly came here in 1889 with the intention of being Greek Catholic and only converted when faced with the abuse of Archbishop Ireland.  More parishes converted or split with the issuance of Ea Semper, banning married priests although it was ignored.  ACROD was formed after Cum Dat Fuerit was issued in 1929, again banning married priests which was this time obeyed.  The late joining parishes in the 50s were due to Bishop Nicholas Elko's mandating the New Calendar.

I believe this secret Orthodox theory is what those that converted to Orthodoxy wanted to believe because they couldn't stand the idea their ancestors "sold out" and united with Rome which is understandable but not supported by the facts: Orthodox churches existing along with Greek Catholic ones in Austria-Hungary, no Greek Catholic parishes converting until abused by Latin bishops.

Can you provide some proof of your statement that Orthodox Churches freely existed along with Greek Catholic Churches in Austria Hungry?  And are you stating that there was a time that Greek Catholics were not abused by Latin Bishops both here and in the 'old country'?

Orthodoc

No, he cannot.
Quote
In the year 1366, king Louis I Anjou of Hungary issued a law-and-order Decree of Turda[4] in part explicitly targeted against the Romanians (presumptuosam astuciam diversorum malefactorum, specialiter Olachorum1, in ipsa terra nostra existencium - the evil arts of many malefactors, especially Vlachs (i.e. Romanians) that live in that our country; exterminandum seu delendum in ipsa terra malefactores quarumlibet nacionum, signanter Olachorum - to expel or exterminate from this country malefactors belonging to any nation, especially Vlachs (i.e. Romanians). Through the same decree, nobility (nobilis Hungarus) is partially redefined in terms of adherence to the Roman Catholic Church, thus excluding the Eastern Orthodox "schismatic" Romanians. The main reason for this policy was of political and religious nature: during Louis I's proselytizing campaign, privileged status was deemed incompatible with that of "schismatic" Eastern Orthodoxy in a state endowed with an apostolic mission by the Holy See.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universitas_Valachorum
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2010, 04:53:49 PM »

Isa proclaims "No he cannot" then provides a link that does so.  Please click on his Google book link and scroll up to Page 195 and under the Transylvania heading.  It states Orthodoxy, throughout the Hungarian overlordship, was a tolerated religion.  Yes the momasteries were destroyed in 1761 and they were without bishops for sixty years but priests were ordaind in Moldovia and ministered in Transylvania until 1810 and the hierarchy was restored.

Then of course there is the Metropolia/Patriarchate of Karlovci.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 05:00:08 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2010, 04:59:39 PM »

Orthodoc,

I will also note their are some Rusyn Greek Catholics who will swear their village was never Orthodox and was always Greek Catholic from the time of SS Cyril and Methodius... Roll Eyes

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,625


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2010, 05:28:53 PM »

Of course the Greek-Catholics were favored by the imperial authorities, but that's not the point, since Orthodoxy wasn't forbidden either, and actually existed and even flourished especially later in the 19th century.
There were many instances all throughout the 18th and early 19th century when the "united" clergy was beaten, imprisoned or even killed by the enraged peasant Orthodox population in many places in Transylvania.

Wasn't forbidden? Then why did Nikolaus Adolf von Bukow march through Transylvania like Sherman to the sea, destroying every Orthodox monastery and hermitage?
http://books.google.com/books?id=fWp9JA3aBvcC&pg=PA197&dq=orthodox+in+Transylvania+von+Bukow&hl=en&ei=0hZ0TImfGcnSngeCz9W7CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=orthodox%20in%20Transylvania%20von%20Bukow&f=false
The Emperor decreed the Orthodox "united." The "schismatic Vlach" Church ceased to offiically exist.  One doesn't forbid what doesn't exist.

Von Bukow did have a lot of trouble, however, with all those non-existent Orthodox Romanians. Hence the push to finish off what the Decree of Turda started and bring reality in line with theory.
The actions of general Bukow, godless as they are, should be seen within the context of the anti-unionist ad very often violent actions led by Sofronie of Cioara; they were Maria Teresa's response to a movement that threatened the very existence of the Unia. The point is that it was still possible to be Orthodox within the Habsburg Empire, although that meant, in general, a less comfortable existence than in the case of the acceptance of the Unia.
Roughly speaking there were indeed about 60 years (1699-1759) when there was no Orthodox bishop allowed in Transylvania, but there was one ever after.
Then there were the Serbs that always had a hierarchy recognized by the Habsburg authorities.
So, it is correct to say that the Orthodox always co-existed with the Greek-Catholics within the Habsburg and then the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Logged
IvanMazepa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orth.
Posts: 17


« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2010, 08:07:09 PM »

There weren't many Greek Catholic Churches anywhere either.  The first Greek Catholic parish to convert to  Orthodoxy was Minneapolis in 1891 with St. Alexis Toth.  He helped 16 other parishes convert before his death in 1909.  He certainly came here in 1889 with the intention of being Greek Catholic and only converted when faced with the abuse of Archbishop Ireland.  More parishes converted or split with the issuance of Ea Semper, banning married priests although it was ignored.  ACROD was formed after Cum Dat Fuerit was issued in 1929, again banning married priests which was this time obeyed.  The late joining parishes in the 50s were due to Bishop Nicholas Elko's mandating the New Calendar.

I believe this secret Orthodox theory is what those that converted to Orthodoxy wanted to believe because they couldn't stand the idea their ancestors "sold out" and united with Rome which is understandable but not supported by the facts: Orthodox churches existing along with Greek Catholic ones in Austria-Hungary, no Greek Catholic parishes converting until abused by Latin bishops.

Can you provide some proof of your statement that Orthodox Churches freely existed along with Greek Catholic Churches in Austria Hungry? 
Orthodoc

Bukovyna, which had the best Ukrainian schools and cultural-educational institutions of all regions in Ukraine before World War One.  The Ukrainian Orthodox were the majority, but the Ukrainian Greek Catholics had a deanery in Chernivsti (capital of today's Bukovyna oblast) which was subordinated to the Lviv archeparchy from 1811 and from 1885 to the Stanyslaviv eparchy.  There was a not insubstantial movement between Ukrainians from Galicia (Halychyna) to Bukovyna and visa-versa.  There were intermarriages between Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox in Bukovyna.  Some times the parents would make agreements that if the child was a boy, Orthodox would be he, a girl Greek Catholic.  I personally know of such circumstances.

God Bless. 
Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2010, 10:39:08 AM »

There weren't many Greek Catholic Churches anywhere either.  The first Greek Catholic parish to convert to  Orthodoxy was Minneapolis in 1891 with St. Alexis Toth.  He helped 16 other parishes convert before his death in 1909.  He certainly came here in 1889 with the intention of being Greek Catholic and only converted when faced with the abuse of Archbishop Ireland.  More parishes converted or split with the issuance of Ea Semper, banning married priests although it was ignored.  ACROD was formed after Cum Dat Fuerit was issued in 1929, again banning married priests which was this time obeyed.  The late joining parishes in the 50s were due to Bishop Nicholas Elko's mandating the New Calendar.

I believe this secret Orthodox theory is what those that converted to Orthodoxy wanted to believe because they couldn't stand the idea their ancestors "sold out" and united with Rome which is understandable but not supported by the facts: Orthodox churches existing along with Greek Catholic ones in Austria-Hungary, no Greek Catholic parishes converting until abused by Latin bishops.

Can you provide some proof of your statement that Orthodox Churches freely existed along with Greek Catholic Churches in Austria Hungry? 
Orthodoc

Bukovyna, which had the best Ukrainian schools and cultural-educational institutions of all regions in Ukraine before World War One.  The Ukrainian Orthodox were the majority, but the Ukrainian Greek Catholics had a deanery in Chernivsti (capital of today's Bukovyna oblast) which was subordinated to the Lviv archeparchy from 1811 and from 1885 to the Stanyslaviv eparchy.  There was a not insubstantial movement between Ukrainians from Galicia (Halychyna) to Bukovyna and visa-versa.  There were intermarriages between Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox in Bukovyna.  Some times the parents would make agreements that if the child was a boy, Orthodox would be he, a girl Greek Catholic.  I personally know of such circumstances.

God Bless. 

Sorry, Pane Ivane, you just don't know your history of Bukovyna.  Please go back & read what I wrote before.
 The Austrians kept very good records and census materials.  Plus as I said we have microfiches of the newspapers from Bukovyna from the era.
The only reason there was a Ukrainian Catholic Church built before WW1 in  Chernivsti was for for show.  It was the capital & the same reason why the Ukrainian Catholics are building a cathedral in Kyiv today, for show and to have representation in the capital city.

There was no inter-marriage between Ukrainian Catholics & Orthodox: to this day the Orthodox in Bukovyna hate the Ukrainian Catholics.  Check the census records from the Austrian era and you will find a  few Ukrainian-Catholic parishes in southern Bukovyna which is now part of Romania since WW2.  Why?  Because when the Austrians took over in 1774-1775, Bukovyna was underpopulated especially in this area of southern Bukovyna that was more attacked by the Turks than the Northern area.  Halychyna was over-populated.  The Austrians encourage people from other areas of the Austrian Empire to settle in Southern Bukovyna which was predominately Romanian in population.  As a result Ukrainian Catholics from Halychyna moved in (in small numbers).  The Ukrainian catholics did not intermarry with their Romanian orthodox neighbours. German-speaking people were also brought in to work in the mines and lumber industry.  Most of the Germans in Bukovyna left in 1944 after being in Bukovyna for generations.  They still have their own organization for German-speaking people who used to live in what they call in Bukovyna.

Secondly, your quote:
Quote
There were intermarriages between Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox in Bukovyna.  Some times the parents would make agreements that if the child was a boy, Orthodox would be he, a girl Greek Catholic.  I personally know of such circumstances.
Happened not in Bukovyna but in the povit of Brody/Volyn.  Sorry, I don't have the reference in front of me me but I think it was in a book by Sister Sofia Senyk, who was born in Brody and is a professor at the Pontifical Institute of Oriental Studies in Rome.  She has written many excellent books on religion in Halychyna and in my opinion is a first-rate scholar.  Very objective and fair.  And she is a Ukrainian Catholic nun, but a true scholar first.

The Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy could not stop their flock from going over the border to worship at Pochaiv.  Their was an annual pilgrimage from Transfiguration in August to the Nativity of the Theotokos in Septemeber and for some stretching out to Pokrova in October.  It was after the harvest so people went and slept outdoors in the fine weather on the steps of Pochaiv, when the guest houses were full.

There was romance, courting and marriages.  As you say girls followed the religion of their mothers and boys the religion of their fathers in mixed marriages in the povit (county) of Brody.  For the non-Ukrainians a bit of geography, the border crossing point between the Austrian Empire and the Russian Empire before WW1 was outside the city of Brody.
Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2010, 10:43:36 AM »

Of course the Greek-Catholics were favored by the imperial authorities, but that's not the point, since Orthodoxy wasn't forbidden either, and actually existed and even flourished especially later in the 19th century.
There were many instances all throughout the 18th and early 19th century when the "united" clergy was beaten, imprisoned or even killed by the enraged peasant Orthodox population in many places in Transylvania.

Wasn't forbidden? Then why did Nikolaus Adolf von Bukow march through Transylvania like Sherman to the sea, destroying every Orthodox monastery and hermitage?
http://books.google.com/books?id=fWp9JA3aBvcC&pg=PA197&dq=orthodox+in+Transylvania+von+Bukow&hl=en&ei=0hZ0TImfGcnSngeCz9W7CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=orthodox%20in%20Transylvania%20von%20Bukow&f=false
The Emperor decreed the Orthodox "united." The "schismatic Vlach" Church ceased to offiically exist.  One doesn't forbid what doesn't exist.

Von Bukow did have a lot of trouble, however, with all those non-existent Orthodox Romanians. Hence the push to finish off what the Decree of Turda started and bring reality in line with theory.
The actions of general Bukow, godless as they are, should be seen within the context of the anti-unionist ad very often violent actions led by Sofronie of Cioara; they were Maria Teresa's response to a movement that threatened the very existence of the Unia. The point is that it was still possible to be Orthodox within the Habsburg Empire, although that meant, in general, a less comfortable existence than in the case of the acceptance of the Unia.
Roughly speaking there were indeed about 60 years (1699-1759) when there was no Orthodox bishop allowed in Transylvania, but there was one ever after.
Then there were the Serbs that always had a hierarchy recognized by the Habsburg authorities.
So, it is correct to say that the Orthodox always co-existed with the Greek-Catholics within the Habsburg and then the Austro-Hungarian empire.


I have to agree in general with the last part of this quote.  But the first part is accurate too, just referring to a different historical time period. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #36 on: August 27, 2010, 11:13:52 AM »

Isa proclaims "No he cannot" then provides a link that does so.  Please click on his Google book link and scroll up to Page 195 and under the Transylvania heading.  It states Orthodoxy, throughout the Hungarian overlordship, was a tolerated religion.

Don't misquote.  It says
Quote
Throughout this period, the Orthodox Faith was only acknowledged as [emphasis mine] 'tolerated religion.' [quotation marks theirs]

What is being quoted as an acknowledgement of the Orthodox Faiths existence (as opposed to it actually being tolorated), is the Edict of Turda, the "Patent of Toleration," issued by King John II Sigmusmund to the Diet, saying that congregations could have the preacher of their choosing. It applied, however, to those with representation in the Diet, which the Orthodox, having been precluded long before  by the Unio Trium Nationum ("Union of Three Nations"), did not. With Leopold I's diploma, the Orthodox officially ceased to exist.  Tolerating the non-existent is easy.

Yes the momasteries were destroyed in 1761 and they were without bishops for sixty years but priests were ordaind in Moldovia

And banned and expelled from Transylvania.

and ministered in Transylvania

No thanks to Vienna's "toleration."

until 1810 and the hierarchy was restored.

No, acutally in 1782 some tolerance was begun to be shown, if inconsistent.

Then of course there is the Metropolia/Patriarchate of Karlovci.
That's not totally unproblematic either. And as far as Karlovci, the Serbs earned what they got from the emperor, or rather the Emperor knew better to not pull the usual backstabbing behavior on the Serbs of the Military Frontier.

Orthodoc,

I will also note their are some Rusyn Greek Catholics who will swear their village was never Orthodox and was always Greek Catholic from the time of SS Cyril and Methodius... Roll Eyes

Fr. Deacon Lance

Then they are mistaken in more ways than one.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2010, 11:35:52 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #37 on: August 27, 2010, 11:30:54 AM »

Of course the Greek-Catholics were favored by the imperial authorities, but that's not the point, since Orthodoxy wasn't forbidden either, and actually existed and even flourished especially later in the 19th century.
There were many instances all throughout the 18th and early 19th century when the "united" clergy was beaten, imprisoned or even killed by the enraged peasant Orthodox population in many places in Transylvania.

Wasn't forbidden? Then why did Nikolaus Adolf von Bukow march through Transylvania like Sherman to the sea, destroying every Orthodox monastery and hermitage?
http://books.google.com/books?id=fWp9JA3aBvcC&pg=PA197&dq=orthodox+in+Transylvania+von+Bukow&hl=en&ei=0hZ0TImfGcnSngeCz9W7CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=orthodox%20in%20Transylvania%20von%20Bukow&f=false
The Emperor decreed the Orthodox "united." The "schismatic Vlach" Church ceased to offiically exist.  One doesn't forbid what doesn't exist.

Von Bukow did have a lot of trouble, however, with all those non-existent Orthodox Romanians. Hence the push to finish off what the Decree of Turda started and bring reality in line with theory.
The actions of general Bukow, godless as they are, should be seen within the context of the anti-unionist ad very often violent actions led by Sofronie of Cioara; they were Maria Teresa's response to a movement that threatened the very existence of the Unia.

Since the Unia depended on denying the existence of the Orthodox, your point in faulting St. Sofronie?

Defending von Bukow. I dont' think even the "Romanian Church united with Rome" would go so far.

Quote
The point is that it was still possible to be Orthodox within the Habsburg Empire,

It was still possible to be Orthodox within Nero's Rome too.

Quote
although that meant, in general, a less comfortable existence than in the case of the acceptance of the Unia.

Roughly speaking there were indeed about 60 years (1699-1759) when there was no Orthodox bishop allowed in Transylvania, but there was one ever after.
Then there were the Serbs that always had a hierarchy recognized by the Habsburg authorities.
So, it is correct to say that the Orthodox always co-existed with the Greek-Catholics within the Habsburg and then the Austro-Hungarian empire.

As for the Serbs, they hewed their patriarchate out of the Military Frontier, not exactly within the Habsburg Empire.  Only insofar as the Serbs kept it in.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2010, 11:36:47 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
IreneOlinyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox (EP)
Posts: 203


« Reply #38 on: August 27, 2010, 04:29:52 PM »


Secondly, your quote:

There were intermarriages between Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox in Bukovyna.  Some times the parents would make agreements that if the child was a boy, Orthodox would be he, a girl Greek Catholic.  I personally know of such circumstances.
Happened not in Bukovyna but in the povit of Brody/Volyn.  Sorry, I don't have the reference in front of me me but I think it was in a book by Sister Sofia Senyk, who was born in Brody and is a professor at the Pontifical Institute of Oriental Studies in Rome.  She has written many excellent books on religion in Halychyna and in my opinion is a first-rate scholar.  Very objective and fair.  And she is a Ukrainian Catholic nun, but a true scholar first.

The Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy could not stop their flock from going over the border to worship at Pochaiv.  Their was an annual pilgrimage from Transfiguration in August to the Nativity of the Theotokos in Septemeber and for some stretching out to Pokrova in October.  It was after the harvest so people went and slept outdoors in the fine weather on the steps of Pochaiv, when the guest houses were full.

There was romance, courting and marriages.  As you say girls followed the religion of their mothers and boys the religion of their fathers in mixed marriages in the povit (county) of Brody.  For the non-Ukrainians a bit of geography, the border crossing point between the Austrian Empire and the Russian Empire before WW1 was outside the city of Brody.

My family was from Volyn and I have read about Ukranian Catholics coming the border from Halychyna (Austria) to Pochaiv in Volyn to worship.  Also taking back Orthodox prayerbooks and even having babies baptised Orthodox at Pochaiv.  Ivan Franko in his short story "The Plague" mentions it all.
This was all common knowledge about inter-marriage. On the Volyn side of the border, all children were brought up Orthodox, but on the other side it went according to the religion of father for boys and mother for girls.

Edited for tags - mike.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2010, 05:00:08 PM by mike » Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


« Reply #39 on: August 27, 2010, 10:25:01 PM »

As for the Serbs, they hewed their patriarchate out of the Military Frontier, not exactly within the Habsburg Empire.  Only insofar as the Serbs kept it in.

Sorry, the Serbs did not have a patriarchate when under Austrian rule.  What the Austrian government did was put all the Orthodox in the southern part of the Empire
under the Metropolitan of Karlovci.  The Orthodox in the Austrian part of the Empire, were under the Metropolitan of Chernivsti.  It was the Austrian government that decided that that the Orthodox Church in Bukovyna was autocephalous.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,625


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #40 on: August 27, 2010, 11:35:49 PM »

Quote
Since the Unia depended on denying the existence of the Orthodox, your point in faulting St. Sofronie?

Defending von Bukow. I dont' think even the "Romanian Church united with Rome" would go so far.
I don't defend Bukow, but he did his job: the imperial authorities were afraid of a peasant revolt led by Sofronie of Cioara, that was already storming churches and taking Uniate and Latin priests as hostages around Zlatna and Abrud (Tara Motilor in Apuseni) so they send Bukow over to "pacify" the region.
My point is that it was still possible, although more difficult, to stay Orthodox.
There were areas in Transylvania like the Western Mountains, Zarand and Bihor (S and E, at least) were Unia had basically no adherents. It was exactly here, in these Orthodox regions of western Transylvania that the peasant revolt of Horea, Closca and Crisan took place. This was an Orthodox revolt in which the Uniates didn't participate.
 
The Orthodox Romanians in Western Transylvania were under the jurisdiction of the Serbian bishop of Arad. In 1755, Sinesie Jivanovici, bishop of Arad was very busy visiting all the Romanian villages on the river Mures and Crisul Alb ( districts/"varmegye" of Arad and Zarand) taking a census of those parishes in relative freedom, without undue interferences from the authorities.
So, before 1760 an Orthodox bishop is able to make a canonical visitation to hundreds of Orthodox parishes in Western Transylvania/Partium.
The picture is more complex than you would have us think. But I somehow feel you are not really bothered by facts.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2010, 11:52:41 PM by augustin717 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #41 on: August 28, 2010, 07:21:50 AM »

As for the Serbs, they hewed their patriarchate out of the Military Frontier, not exactly within the Habsburg Empire.  Only insofar as the Serbs kept it in.

Sorry, the Serbs did not have a patriarchate when under Austrian rule.  What the Austrian government did was put all the Orthodox in the southern part of the Empire
under the Metropolitan of Karlovci.  The Orthodox in the Austrian part of the Empire, were under the Metropolitan of Chernivsti.  It was the Austrian government that decided that that the Orthodox Church in Bukovyna was autocephalous.
Archbishop Arsenije III of Pec, Patriarch of the Serbs, led them in the First Serb Migration: he had led the Serbs to join forces with the Hapsburgs to drive the Ottomans out of the Balkans.  In 1690 Emperor Leopold issued his Letter of Invitation to populate the frontier, which Pat. Arsenije accepted only on the stipulation of a seperate status of the Serbs under their own Church.  Leopold then issued the Chapter of Privleges, and the Serbs came in to settle. When Pat. Arsenije found out that the local Vatican bishops were forcing the arriving Serbs to convert, he confronted the emperor, who issued the Diploma of Protection.  When the Latin clergy persisted, the Serbs demanded a seperate territory to settle, and in 1695 Pat. Arsenije set up dioceses for the Serbs on the march/krajina.  Once the Ottomans were constrained by the Treat of Karlowitz in 1699, as usual Leopold sought to undo the promises and guarentees given the Serbs, and restrict Arsenjie to serve only as "Metropolitan of Szentendre."  In 1703 the Emperor, having used the Serbs to eliminate the Ottoman threat, restricted Arch. (being demoted from Pat.) Arsenije's jurisdiction to newcomers to Szentendre, the rest of the Serbs were ordered to submit to the Vatican's ordinary bishops. The Hungarians, however, also deemed the Ottoman threat gone, and rebelled against Leopold, who found he needed the Serbs again, and promptly reissued the privledges.  This process repeated itself, the Serbs ever proving their worth (and, unlike the emperor, their faithfulness to the agreement), until Austrian caught up to its rhetoric. So in the meantime, when Istanbul "abolished" the Serbs Patriarchate, the Church at Karlowitz, beyond the Sultan's reach, ignored it.

As for Bukowina and Cisleithania, that came with the Ausgleich of the Dual Monarchy in 1867
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #42 on: August 28, 2010, 07:47:39 AM »

Quote
Since the Unia depended on denying the existence of the Orthodox, your point in faulting St. Sofronie?

Defending von Bukow. I dont' think even the "Romanian Church united with Rome" would go so far.
I don't defend Bukow, but he did his job: the imperial authorities were afraid of a peasant revolt led by Sofronie of Cioara, that was already storming churches and taking Uniate and Latin priests as hostages around Zlatna and Abrud (Tara Motilor in Apuseni) so they send Bukow over to "pacify" the region.
My point is that it was still possible, although more difficult, to stay Orthodox.
There were areas in Transylvania like the Western Mountains, Zarand and Bihor (S and E, at least) were Unia had basically no adherents. It was exactly here, in these Orthodox regions of western Transylvania that the peasant revolt of Horea, Closca and Crisan took place. This was an Orthodox revolt in which the Uniates didn't participate.
 
The Orthodox Romanians in Western Transylvania were under the jurisdiction of the Serbian bishop of Arad. In 1755, Sinesie Jivanovici, bishop of Arad was very busy visiting all the Romanian villages on the river Mures and Crisul Alb ( districts/"varmegye" of Arad and Zarand) taking a census of those parishes in relative freedom, without undue interferences from the authorities.
So, before 1760 an Orthodox bishop is able to make a canonical visitation to hundreds of Orthodox parishes in Western Transylvania/Partium.
The picture is more complex than you would have us think. But I somehow feel you are not really bothered by facts.
You make a blanket statement that one could be Orthodox in the Austrian Empire (the "Holy Roman Empire") and the Kingdom of Hungary, conveniently ignoring that those parishes visited in 1760 were subject to destruction the following years despite, or perhaps rather because, of the overhwhelming majority being Orthodox.

What, those in "union" didn't have a peasants? If they did, it couldn't have been a "peasant revolt" in the Marxist sense. Something else had to be the issue than who owned the means of production.

Btw, that bishop there resigned in 1762, because he saw that he was nothing more than a caretaker for the condemned, with no ability to minister as a real bishop. The Empress simply refused to accept it: she needed the facade.

Several times the authorities declared the Orthodox non-existent, and set about to actively make it so.  With your "criteria" of "co-existence," one can say one could be a Christian in pagan Rome too.

Have you seen the DaVinci Code?  Actually worse than the book, quite an achievement.  There they said the picture  of the Roman persecusions was more coplex than the martyrologies would have it.  It wasn't bothered by facts either.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,625


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #43 on: August 28, 2010, 01:56:44 PM »

Quote
You make a blanket statement that one could be Orthodox in the Austrian Empire (the "Holy Roman Empire") and the Kingdom of Hungary, conveniently ignoring that those parishes visited in 1760 were subject to destruction the following years despite, or perhaps rather because, of the overhwhelming majority being Orthodox.
Those parishes, in the districts of Arad, Zarand , Bihor and Banat (Torontal, Timis, Caras-Severin)  were never "subject to destruction the following years" ; Bukow only destroyed churches in central and southern Transylvania (Alba, Sibiu etc);my whole family comes from the former Habsburg districts of Bihor and Zarand (under the jurisdiction of the bishops of Arad, at the time), so I read quite a bit about the region, and they were never forced into the union with Rome, although a few villages, lured by economic promises made by the authorities voluntarily accepted the unia for a time;but even those never stayed there for long, so that in the first half of the 19th century, disappointed by the authorities' denying them the promised economic privileges, they switched back to Orthodoxy; They did that without anybody being killed, although there were some  brawls with the imperial and local authorities. But most of the village in these districts were never Uniate, to begin with.
So, in the second half of the 19th century and the first of the 20th the number of the Greek-Catholic parishes in these counties was very low: about twenty in both Arad and Zarand, (most of them in Arad) and never in villages completely Greek-Catholic, but always with an Orthodox majority or, at least large Orthodox  minority.
Perhaps you should check this book:
http://www.librariaeminescu.ro/isbn/973-610-430-3/Pavel-Vesa__Episcopia-Aradului-Istorie-cultura-mentalitati
Check this map too, and you'll see the confessional situation in Transylvania in 1930, which is basically the same as before 1918:the dark green colored counties have an Orthodox majority, while the yellow-colored counties a Greek-Catholic majority:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ro/e/e6/Romania_1930_ortodocsi_si_greco-catolici.png
« Last Edit: August 28, 2010, 02:03:16 PM by augustin717 » Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


« Reply #44 on: August 28, 2010, 02:20:19 PM »

Thanks Augustin, I am learning a lot from your posts.  I have studied a bit of Romanian & know French & Latin so I am going to brose your last reference.

I think this has become a very interesting thread.  Isn't it great that we have so many members with historical knoweldge and research skills.

Most of all I want to say "Thank you" to everyone for remaining polite.  We have divergent views but it is important to discuss things.

Just another general observation in getting back to Eastern Slovakia specifically, the poor Rusyns in the area were just that the poorest economically of the ethnic groups in the time period before emigration to America started.  But they were proud of their heritage and resent the attempts of the Hungarians to Latinize and assimilate them.  They had no political clout.  There are materials about what is called "Magarization/Latinization) in the Greek Catholic Church in Eastern Slovakia at that time.

There is a difference between "toleration" of religion and government (read Hungarian officials)
 encouragement or blessing of religion with equal rights for all religions.  Yes, the Edict of Tolerance was passed by the government in Vienna, but villagers who wanted to turn their little village church into an Orthodox church did meet with local government opposition.  This were done quietly with young men going to Kalovcsi to study and be ordained Orthodox priests and then returned home.

I have never checked the records but I know that the official Greek Catholic priests were paid by the government just as Orthodox priests were paid (and very well) in Bukovyna by the government.  But I seem to remember from Magosci's books, that the Orthodox priests and parishes in Eastern Slovakia were not paid by the government and had to be supported by the donations of parishioners.  The Orthodox priests were making a sacrifice to be Orthodox friends in terms of money.
Logged
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2010, 11:51:47 AM »

Bukovyna, which had the best Ukrainian schools and cultural-educational institutions of all regions in Ukraine before World War One.  The Ukrainian Orthodox were the majority, but the Ukrainian Greek Catholics had a deanery in Chernivsti (capital of today's Bukovyna oblast) which was subordinated to the Lviv archeparchy from 1811 and from 1885 to the Stanyslaviv eparchy.  There was a not insubstantial movement between Ukrainians from Galicia (Halychyna) to Bukovyna and visa-versa.  There were intermarriages between Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox in Bukovyna.  Some times the parents would make agreements that if the child was a boy, Orthodox would be he, a girl Greek Catholic.  I personally know of such circumstances.

God Bless. 

As a digression. Russian Tsarist law stated that in case, the husband and wife were of a different faith, the sons would be raised in the faith of the father/husband and the daughters would be raised in the faith of the wife/mother, unless the two parties agreed otherwise.
Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


« Reply #46 on: September 06, 2010, 12:12:22 PM »



As a digression. Russian Tsarist law stated that in case, the husband and wife were of a different faith, the sons would be raised in the faith of the father/husband and the daughters would be raised in the faith of the wife/mother, unless the two parties agreed otherwise.

Are you saying that there was a secular law applicable throughout the whole Russian Empire?  Can you please quote the number of the law and the date introduced into law?

I only know of (cited by others not in a book) a directive passed by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church applicable to the border areas (Ukrainians in Volynia) or areas of Poland that were part of the Russian Empire.
Logged
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #47 on: September 07, 2010, 10:44:42 AM »



As a digression. Russian Tsarist law stated that in case, the husband and wife were of a different faith, the sons would be raised in the faith of the father/husband and the daughters would be raised in the faith of the wife/mother, unless the two parties agreed otherwise.

Are you saying that there was a secular law applicable throughout the whole Russian Empire?  Can you please quote the number of the law and the date introduced into law?

I only know of (cited by others not in a book) a directive passed by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church applicable to the border areas (Ukrainians in Volynia) or areas of Poland that were part of the Russian Empire.

I have a textbook with texts of  historical legal documents translated into Polish. The heading of this dokument is "Prawo o małżeństwie" (1836 r.) "Marriage Law"The source of this is "ukaz cesarsko-królewski z dnia 16/28 marca 1836 r. Dziennik Praw Królestwa Polskiego(Congress Poland), t.XVIII, pages 47-297. I think if you type in Russian "ukaz from the 16/28 of March 1836 AD" you might find more data. I do not know if this was the law only for the Congressional state of Poland or for all the empire. After the fall of the uprising in 1831 AD, the legal sovereignty of Congress Poland(Królestwo Polskie) as a state in personal union with the Russian Empire was questioned and the Tsarist law was applied directly. I hope I can help.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #48 on: July 26, 2013, 11:15:50 AM »

Ever wonder why only 63 out of hundreds of priests signed the union?  Or why there were no bishops who signed?  Could it be because the Orthodox bishops were all in jail?  And, 63 out of how many hundreds of priest is hardly a majority.  What happened to the 'majority rules' concept if this was no a forced union?  My gradparents came from this union.  They, along with each generation that preceded them, taught their children that Orthodoxy was their true faith and they were to go back if and when they found themselves in a place WHERE THEY WERE ONCE AGAIN FREE TO PRACTICE THEIR ORTHODOX FAITH.  This is what they did along with thousands of others around the turn of the century.

That only 63 priests were there shows no one was forced to go.  There was only one Orthodox bishop involved, Bishop Basil Tarasovic, who had proclaimed his own union in 1642.  The Calvinist Prince Rakoczy refused to allow him to return to his see in Mukachevo and installed the Calvinizing priest John Jusko in his place.  To regain his see and facilitate future union, he renounced his own personal union.  He however nominated pro-union priest Peter Parthenius Petrovic as his successor before he died.  He was elected at a gathering of 400 priests, receiving 370 votes, (quite a majority) and was ordained bishop by the sympathetic Orthodox Metropoltain of Alba Iulia.  That however did not stop the Racoczys from appointing an Orthodox bishop, Joannicius Zejkan.

Which leads us to your oft cited claim the Greek Catholics were just Crypto-Orthodox waiting for a chance to be free.  If that were true the Greek Catholics would have simply gone to the Orthodox off the boat in America, which we know did not happen.
We also know that in the early years, they didn't know that the Orthodox were in America.  Once they found out, the ball started rolling.

Many just went over the border to Bukowina, where they made up the majority of the Orthodox by the end of the 19th century. Or across to the Russian Empire, where they played a central role in the recovery of the Kholm Land, now the heartland of the Polish Orthodox Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #49 on: July 26, 2013, 03:10:24 PM »

the Kholm Land, now the heartland of the Polish Orthodox Church.

Not really.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
jah777
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,771


« Reply #50 on: July 26, 2013, 03:14:02 PM »

Just goes to show that no one causes Christians more suffering than other Christians. Tongue

Nothing causes so much sorrow for the Church like false churches.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #51 on: July 26, 2013, 03:45:20 PM »

the Kholm Land, now the heartland of the Polish Orthodox Church.

Not really.
No, not the green? (compared to the POC dioceses?)
« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 03:46:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #52 on: July 26, 2013, 03:52:43 PM »

Fixed that for you (more-less)
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #53 on: July 26, 2013, 04:28:45 PM »

Fixed that for you (more-less)
What's the circle?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #54 on: July 26, 2013, 04:33:31 PM »

Fixed that for you (more-less)
What's the circle?
"the heartland of the Polish Orthodox Church" more-less
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #55 on: July 26, 2013, 04:41:11 PM »

Just goes to show that no one causes Christians more suffering than other Christians. Tongue

Nothing causes so much sorrow for the Church like false churches.

Which must be destroyed at all costs? (and thanks for reminding me of what I wrote 3 years ago.  Cool )
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #56 on: July 26, 2013, 04:59:43 PM »

Fixed that for you (more-less)
What's the circle?
"the heartland of the Polish Orthodox Church" more-less
Does it have a name?  How did it win that distinction?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #57 on: July 26, 2013, 05:01:20 PM »

Fixed that for you (more-less)
What's the circle?
"the heartland of the Polish Orthodox Church" more-less
Does it have a name? 

Podlachia.

Quote
How did it win that distinction?

Largest population of Orthodox, concentration of parishes etc.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.208 seconds with 86 queries.