Successor Hierarch for the ACROD?

[Gorazd]

The Eparchy of Mukachevo has never been a part of the UGCC or the Kyiv Metropolitanate.  Before the union of Uzhorord, Mukachevo answered to Constantinople via Transylvania whose metropolitans ordained the bishops for Mukachevo.  It was never under Kyiv or Lviv.

Many of the Ukrainian priests say it's a matter of time.

Would Rome force Mukachevo to go under Lviv against its will? I don't see why they should do that. And as a consolidation of Catholic forces in Ukraine, such a move could also be considered hostile by the MP.

[Gorazd]

 The communists along with your ancestors and countrymen killed plenty of my relatives.

Considering the antifascist history of my family, I will consider your statement ignorance, rather than an insult.

[Deacon Lance]

Would Rome force Mukachevo to go under Lviv against its will?

No.

[ialmisry]

Would Rome force Mukachevo to go under Lviv against its will?

No.

Oh?

You might want to review the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican before answering.

[podkarpatska]

Still, it is strange that ACROD gets a Greek bishop,

What is strange about an Orthodox diocese of Americans of Carpatho-Russian descent getting an American of Greek descent for bishop?

We've been away for the past ten days, including a stop at our annual diocesan fraternal organization's convention in Johnstown, PA. If there is any dissension, it must have been laying low as most are eager to have a bishop back at the cathedral!

Deacon Lance is correct. Nothing is strange as we are in America. I am nearly 60 years old and I can neither speak, nor read the Rusyn language. Only a few committed members of the Carpatho-Rusyn Society have that ability - at least those under say eighty five years of age or so....and most of them would agree that there is simply no need for that knowledge within the structure of the American Church. Frankly the number of folks here in America who have any degree of fluency in the language who are either part of ACROD or the OCA or Byzantine Catholic are few and far between. There has been little if any immigration over the past thirty years and there really is no need for a priest or bishop to be able to speak 'po-nasemu' either for purposes of confessions or sermons. I haven't heard a Rusyn sermon in our diocese since I was a child in the late 1960's. We rarely have any Slavonic in our services.

While in the old days there may have been animosity between Ukrainians and Rusyns in America (certainly the history of the Greek Catholic Church and the failed mission of Bishop Ortynsky bears that out) it is rather absurd to say there is any real, lingering dislike or animosity these days among us. For the past three years or so, Archbishop Antony of the UOC-USA has been ministering our spiritual needs even though Archbishop Dimitrios was the Locum Tenens as +Dimitrios is a wise man and recognized the need for a bishop to have knowledge of the practice of the Rusyns and Ukrainians as laid out by St. Peter Mohyla. I can assure you that Father Grigorios has not been twiddling his thumbs boiling red Paschal eggs to replace pysanky and cases of ouzo in place of Becherova, but rather has been studying the Slavic praxis and learning the Rusyn chants and Church Slavonic so that he can be prepared for this new phase of his priestly life.

He stated clearly during his 'interview process' that a Bishop who would change the ways of 10,000 faithful in favor of his particular ways (that is by replacing Rusyn or Slavic traditions in favor of Hellenistic ones) would be an arrogant fool. From the testimony of those here who know him well over the years, it is clear that he is neither arrogant nor a fool.

As to issues regarding Presov and Uzghorod and why Muchachevo retains her status and is not part of the UGCC - they are not really germane here in America. But I do suspect that Rome knows full well why Mucachevo's independent status had to be retained.

And yes, Metropolitan Orestes did come from Presov, was pastor in,I believe, Osturna, Slovakia and probably half of the founders of the ACROD (including my grandparents as well as my wife's maternal side) came from what is now Slovakia and half came from Transcarpathia.

And back in the 1960's we did obtain a Bishop from the 'old sod', i.e. an Orthodox auxialiary from Kosicse, Slovakia - the late Bishop Methodius (Kanchuka). His short tenure of less than one year, before we 'asked' that he be returned to the Czechoslovak church, was - to be blunt - a disaster and is mostly forgotten by those in the ACROD today.

In a 'perfect' world I suppose I would have preferred a son of one of our parishes who possessed a full knowledge of our history, our struggles and our successes but this world is not a perfect one. I wish the Bishop-elect well and am more that willing to proclaim "Axios."

And if anyone thinks that we have signed our 'death warrant' or sipped on some poison which will wipe us out - well, they don't really know Rusyn culture and the sons and daughters of Duchnovyc.

[Deacon Lance]

Would Rome force Mukachevo to go under Lviv against its will?

No.

Oh?

You might want to review the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican before answering.

I know it and my answer remains.  

[Basil 320]

Still, it is strange that ACROD gets a Greek bishop,

What is strange about an Orthodox diocese of Americans of Carpatho-Russian descent getting an American of Greek descent for bishop?

We've been away for the past ten days, including a stop at our annual diocesan fraternal organization's convention in Johnstown, PA. If there is any dissension, it must have been laying low as most are eager to have a bishop back at the cathedral!

Deacon Lance is correct. Nothing is strange as we are in America. I am nearly 60 years old and I can neither speak, nor read the Rusyn language. Only a few committed members of the Carpatho-Rusyn Society have that ability - at least those under say eighty five years of age or so....and most of them would agree that there is simply no need for that knowledge within the structure of the American Church. Frankly the number of folks here in America who have any degree of fluency in the language who are either part of ACROD or the OCA or Byzantine Catholic are few and far between. There has been little if any immigration over the past thirty years and there really is no need for a priest or bishop to be able to speak 'po-nasemu' either for purposes of confessions or sermons. I haven't heard a Rusyn sermon in our diocese since I was a child in the late 1960's. We rarely have any Slavonic in our services.

While in the old days there may have been animosity between Ukrainians and Rusyns in America (certainly the history of the Greek Catholic Church and the failed mission of Bishop Ortynsky bears that out) it is rather absurd to say there is any real, lingering dislike or animosity these days among us. For the past three years or so, Archbishop Antony of the UOC-USA has been ministering our spiritual needs even though Archbishop Dimitrios was the Locum Tenens as +Dimitrios is a wise man and recognized the need for a bishop to have knowledge of the practice of the Rusyns and Ukrainians as laid out by St. Peter Mohyla. I can assure you that Father Grigorios has not been twiddling his thumbs boiling red Paschal eggs to replace pysanky and cases of ouzo in place of Becherova, but rather has been studying the Slavic praxis and learning the Rusyn chants and Church Slavonic so that he can be prepared for this new phase of his priestly life.

He stated clearly during his 'interview process' that a Bishop who would change the ways of 10,000 faithful in favor of his particular ways (that is by replacing Rusyn or Slavic traditions in favor of Hellenistic ones) would be an arrogant fool. From the testimony of those here who know him well over the years, it is clear that he is neither arrogant nor a fool.

As to issues regarding Presov and Uzghorod and why Muchachevo retains her status and is not part of the UGCC - they are not really germane here in America. But I do suspect that Rome knows full well why Mucachevo's independent status had to be retained.

And yes, Metropolitan Orestes did come from Presov, was pastor in,I believe, Osturna, Slovakia and probably half of the founders of the ACROD (including my grandparents as well as my wife's maternal side) came from what is now Slovakia and half came from Transcarpathia.

And back in the 1960's we did obtain a Bishop from the 'old sod', i.e. an Orthodox auxialiary from Kosicse, Slovakia - the late Bishop Methodius (Kanchuka). His short tenure of less than one year, before we 'asked' that he be returned to the Czechoslovak church, was - to be blunt - a disaster and is mostly forgotten by those in the ACROD today.

In a 'perfect' world I suppose I would have preferred a son of one of our parishes who possessed a full knowledge of our history, our struggles and our successes but this world is not a perfect one. I wish the Bishop-elect well and am more that willing to proclaim "Axios."

And if anyone thinks that we have signed our 'death warrant' or sipped on some poison which will wipe us out - well, they don't really know Rusyn culture and the sons and daughters of Duchnovyc.

I knew you would give us the definitive commentary.

(I wondered where you were, but I thought you knew too much and were staying out of it.  Welcome back.)

[ialmisry]

I am only stating the reason for the existence of two separate jurisdictions in communion with Rome. And that reason is not culture or identity.

DIocese of Mukachevo was restored in 1989. Why wasn't it merged with the UGCC?

The Eparchy of Mukachevo has never been a part of the UGCC or the Kyiv Metropolitanate.  Before the union of Uzhorord, Mukachevo answered to Constantinople via Transylvania whose metropolitans ordained the bishops for Mukachevo.  It was never under Kyiv or Lviv.

The Eparchy of Mukacheve had been at the birth of its episcopate in the Metropolitinate of Kiev, in the Metropolitinate of Galicia when that was seperate:

before the autocephaly of the Metropolitanate of Kiev and All Rus'.  Before that, Constantinople alternated jurisdiction between Galicia/Rus' and the Metropolitanate of Moldavia.  Before that, it would have fallen under the Metropolitanate of Tourkia, i.e. Hungary, as long as that lasted.

[ialmisry]

Would Rome force Mukachevo to go under Lviv against its will?

No.

Oh?

You might want to review the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican before answering.

I know it and my answer remains.  

Then you don't know that history, or are in denial.

[Deacon Lance]

I am only stating the reason for the existence of two separate jurisdictions in communion with Rome. And that reason is not culture or identity.

DIocese of Mukachevo was restored in 1989. Why wasn't it merged with the UGCC?

The Eparchy of Mukachevo has never been a part of the UGCC or the Kyiv Metropolitanate.  Before the union of Uzhorord, Mukachevo answered to Constantinople via Transylvania whose metropolitans ordained the bishops for Mukachevo.  It was never under Kyiv or Lviv.

The Eparchy of Mukacheve had been at the birth of its episcopate in the Metropolitinate of Kiev, in the Metropolitinate of Galicia when that was seperate:
before the autocephaly of the Metropolitanate of Kiev and All Rus'.  Before that, Constantinople alternated jurisdiction between Galicia/Rus' and the Metropolitanate of Moldavia.  Before that, it would have fallen under the Metropolitanate of Tourkia, i.e. Hungary, as long as that lasted.

The bishop of Mukachevo was also abbot of St Nicholas Monastery which was stauropegial under Constantinople regardless of which political power the Rusyns answered to.  Please get yourself a copy of The Union of Uzhorod   by  Michael Lacko.  For further proof, when the Union of Brest was enacted by the Metropolitan of Kyiv and his suffragans, Mukachevo was not among them.      

[Deacon Lance]

Would Rome force Mukachevo to go under Lviv against its will?

No.

Oh?

You might want to review the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican before answering.

I know it and my answer remains.  

Then you don't know that history, or are in denial.

If Rome wanted to force Mukachevo under Kyiv it could do so and had the perfect opportunity in the 90s when the auxillary of Mukachevo was pro-Ukrainian.  As it is, Mukachevo and the Rusyns unique status has been respected by both Rome and Lviv/Kyiv.

[ialmisry]

I am only stating the reason for the existence of two separate jurisdictions in communion with Rome. And that reason is not culture or identity.

DIocese of Mukachevo was restored in 1989. Why wasn't it merged with the UGCC?

The Eparchy of Mukachevo has never been a part of the UGCC or the Kyiv Metropolitanate.  Before the union of Uzhorord, Mukachevo answered to Constantinople via Transylvania whose metropolitans ordained the bishops for Mukachevo.  It was never under Kyiv or Lviv.

The Eparchy of Mukacheve had been at the birth of its episcopate in the Metropolitinate of Kiev, in the Metropolitinate of Galicia when that was seperate:
before the autocephaly of the Metropolitanate of Kiev and All Rus'.  Before that, Constantinople alternated jurisdiction between Galicia/Rus' and the Metropolitanate of Moldavia.  Before that, it would have fallen under the Metropolitanate of Tourkia, i.e. Hungary, as long as that lasted.

The bishop of Mukachevo was also abbot of St Nicholas Monastery which was stauropegial under Constantinople regardless of which political power the Rusyns answered to.

That wan't until 1491, when the Metropolitanate of Kiev and All Rus' had been autocephalous of Constantinople for four decades.

Please get yourself a copy of The Union of Uzhorod   by  Michael Lacko.  For further proof, when the Union of Brest was enacted by the Metropolitan of Kyiv and his suffragans, Mukachevo was not among them.      

The "Union of Brest" wasn't enacted by the Metropolitan of Kiev and his suffragans: some of them acquiesced into it.  Others, like the Bishop of Lviv, didn't sign it either.

[Orest]

Would Rome force Mukachevo to go under Lviv against its will?

No.

Oh?
You might want to review the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican before answering.

Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.  Please enlighten me.
about the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican as it pertains to this issue under discussion.  Thanks.

[ialmisry]

Would Rome force Mukachevo to go under Lviv against its will?

No.

Oh?
You might want to review the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican before answering.

Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.  Please enlighten me.
about the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican as it pertains to this issue under discussion.  Thanks.

The Concordant between the Vatican and Warsaw, to which the Metropolitan was not a party, put him on a very, very short leash, placed in the hands of the Latin hierarchy of Poland.  His jurisdiction was strictly confined to Galicia: when he attempted to reconstitute his diocese of Kholm, his hand was slapped so hard that it was broken off.  Only in the Soviet Union, i.e. where he had no hopes of exercising jurisdiction, did the Vatican give him a free hand-until it turned the USSR over to the "New Union" under a French IIRC cardinal whose name escapes me at the moment, to whom was also given the jurisdiction over the Metropolitan's flock in Eastern Poland, along with the Latin ordinary.  The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan's flock in Southern Poland was placed under the Vatican directly.

And, of course, he had no jurisdiction over the Latin Polish hierarchy in Galicia itself.

[Schultz]

Would Rome force Mukachevo to go under Lviv against its will?

No.

Oh?
You might want to review the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican before answering.

Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.  Please enlighten me.
about the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican as it pertains to this issue under discussion.  Thanks.

The Concordant between the Vatican and Warsaw, to which the Metropolitan was not a party, put him on a very, very short leash, placed in the hands of the Latin hierarchy of Poland.  His jurisdiction was strictly confined to Galicia: when he attempted to reconstitute his diocese of Kholm, his hand was slapped so hard that it was broken off.  Only in the Soviet Union, i.e. where he had no hopes of exercising jurisdiction, did the Vatican give him a free hand-until it turned the USSR over to the "New Union" under a French IIRC cardinal whose name escapes me at the moment, to whom was also given the jurisdiction over the Metropolitan's flock in Eastern Poland, along with the Latin ordinary.  The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan's flock in Southern Poland was placed under the Vatican directly.

And, of course, he had no jurisdiction over the Latin Polish hierarchy in Galicia itself.

and what does this have to do with the possibility of Rome forcing Mukacevo under UGCC?

[ialmisry]

Would Rome force Mukachevo to go under Lviv against its will?

No.

Oh?
You might want to review the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican before answering.

Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.  Please enlighten me.
about the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican as it pertains to this issue under discussion.  Thanks.

The Concordant between the Vatican and Warsaw, to which the Metropolitan was not a party, put him on a very, very short leash, placed in the hands of the Latin hierarchy of Poland.  His jurisdiction was strictly confined to Galicia: when he attempted to reconstitute his diocese of Kholm, his hand was slapped so hard that it was broken off.  Only in the Soviet Union, i.e. where he had no hopes of exercising jurisdiction, did the Vatican give him a free hand-until it turned the USSR over to the "New Union" under a French IIRC cardinal whose name escapes me at the moment, to whom was also given the jurisdiction over the Metropolitan's flock in Eastern Poland, along with the Latin ordinary.  The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan's flock in Southern Poland was placed under the Vatican directly.

And, of course, he had no jurisdiction over the Latin Polish hierarchy in Galicia itself.

and what does this have to do with the possibility of Rome forcing Mukacevo under UGCC?

The Congregation in the Vatican need only decide it being in their interest, and it will happen that day.  Whatever Mukachevo or the UGCC think about that.  That is their track record.

[podkarpatska]

Would Rome force Mukachevo to go under Lviv against its will?

No.

Oh?
You might want to review the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican before answering.

Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.  Please enlighten me.
about the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican as it pertains to this issue under discussion.  Thanks.

The Concordant between the Vatican and Warsaw, to which the Metropolitan was not a party, put him on a very, very short leash, placed in the hands of the Latin hierarchy of Poland.  His jurisdiction was strictly confined to Galicia: when he attempted to reconstitute his diocese of Kholm, his hand was slapped so hard that it was broken off.  Only in the Soviet Union, i.e. where he had no hopes of exercising jurisdiction, did the Vatican give him a free hand-until it turned the USSR over to the "New Union" under a French IIRC cardinal whose name escapes me at the moment, to whom was also given the jurisdiction over the Metropolitan's flock in Eastern Poland, along with the Latin ordinary.  The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan's flock in Southern Poland was placed under the Vatican directly.

And, of course, he had no jurisdiction over the Latin Polish hierarchy in Galicia itself.

and what does this have to do with the possibility of Rome forcing Mukacevo under UGCC?

The Congregation in the Vatican need only decide it being in their interest, and it will happen that day.  Whatever Mukachevo or the UGCC think about that.  That is their track record.

I don't doubt that many of the bureaucrat's at the Congregation still toast to the good old days before the internet, Facebook, Twitter etc.... when they could get away with things that they can't quite pull off today in cahoots with state power. While such sentiments and efforts to effectuate them still exist as Isa alludes to, such actions are much harder to pull off today. An autocratic state may crack down with the power of the state to shut off dissent but at great risk and cost. The Church no longer has access to such temporal forces to gain its advantage. I suspect the faithful of Muchachevo would take their fate into their own hands were Rome to force something upon them which was politically and culturally unsustainable.

[ialmisry]

Would Rome force Mukachevo to go under Lviv against its will?

No.

Oh?
You might want to review the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican before answering.

Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.  Please enlighten me.
about the history of Met. Sheptytsky and the Vatican as it pertains to this issue under discussion.  Thanks.

The Concordant between the Vatican and Warsaw, to which the Metropolitan was not a party, put him on a very, very short leash, placed in the hands of the Latin hierarchy of Poland.  His jurisdiction was strictly confined to Galicia: when he attempted to reconstitute his diocese of Kholm, his hand was slapped so hard that it was broken off.  Only in the Soviet Union, i.e. where he had no hopes of exercising jurisdiction, did the Vatican give him a free hand-until it turned the USSR over to the "New Union" under a French IIRC cardinal whose name escapes me at the moment, to whom was also given the jurisdiction over the Metropolitan's flock in Eastern Poland, along with the Latin ordinary.  The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan's flock in Southern Poland was placed under the Vatican directly.

And, of course, he had no jurisdiction over the Latin Polish hierarchy in Galicia itself.

and what does this have to do with the possibility of Rome forcing Mukacevo under UGCC?

The Congregation in the Vatican need only decide it being in their interest, and it will happen that day.  Whatever Mukachevo or the UGCC think about that.  That is their track record.

I don't doubt that many of the bureaucrat's at the Congregation still toast to the good old days before the internet, Facebook, Twitter etc.... when they could get away with things that they can't quite pull off today in cahoots with state power. While such sentiments and efforts to effectuate them still exist as Isa alludes to, such actions are much harder to pull off today. An autocratic state may crack down with the power of the state to shut off dissent but at great risk and cost. The Church no longer has access to such temporal forces to gain its advantage. I suspect the faithful of Muchachevo would take their fate into their own hands were Rome to force something upon them which was politically and culturally unsustainable.

I would hope so, as their Orthodox brethren are in the present day.

[podkarpatska]

Still, it is strange that ACROD gets a Greek bishop,

What is strange about an Orthodox diocese of Americans of Carpatho-Russian descent getting an American of Greek descent for bishop?

We've been away for the past ten days, including a stop at our annual diocesan fraternal organization's convention in Johnstown, PA. If there is any dissension, it must have been laying low as most are eager to have a bishop back at the cathedral!

Deacon Lance is correct. Nothing is strange as we are in America. I am nearly 60 years old and I can neither speak, nor read the Rusyn language. Only a few committed members of the Carpatho-Rusyn Society have that ability - at least those under say eighty five years of age or so....and most of them would agree that there is simply no need for that knowledge within the structure of the American Church. Frankly the number of folks here in America who have any degree of fluency in the language who are either part of ACROD or the OCA or Byzantine Catholic are few and far between. There has been little if any immigration over the past thirty years and there really is no need for a priest or bishop to be able to speak 'po-nasemu' either for purposes of confessions or sermons. I haven't heard a Rusyn sermon in our diocese since I was a child in the late 1960's. We rarely have any Slavonic in our services.

While in the old days there may have been animosity between Ukrainians and Rusyns in America (certainly the history of the Greek Catholic Church and the failed mission of Bishop Ortynsky bears that out) it is rather absurd to say there is any real, lingering dislike or animosity these days among us. For the past three years or so, Archbishop Antony of the UOC-USA has been ministering our spiritual needs even though Archbishop Dimitrios was the Locum Tenens as +Dimitrios is a wise man and recognized the need for a bishop to have knowledge of the practice of the Rusyns and Ukrainians as laid out by St. Peter Mohyla. I can assure you that Father Grigorios has not been twiddling his thumbs boiling red Paschal eggs to replace pysanky and cases of ouzo in place of Becherova, but rather has been studying the Slavic praxis and learning the Rusyn chants and Church Slavonic so that he can be prepared for this new phase of his priestly life.

He stated clearly during his 'interview process' that a Bishop who would change the ways of 10,000 faithful in favor of his particular ways (that is by replacing Rusyn or Slavic traditions in favor of Hellenistic ones) would be an arrogant fool. From the testimony of those here who know him well over the years, it is clear that he is neither arrogant nor a fool.

As to issues regarding Presov and Uzghorod and why Muchachevo retains her status and is not part of the UGCC - they are not really germane here in America. But I do suspect that Rome knows full well why Mucachevo's independent status had to be retained.

And yes, Metropolitan Orestes did come from Presov, was pastor in,I believe, Osturna, Slovakia and probably half of the founders of the ACROD (including my grandparents as well as my wife's maternal side) came from what is now Slovakia and half came from Transcarpathia.

And back in the 1960's we did obtain a Bishop from the 'old sod', i.e. an Orthodox auxialiary from Kosicse, Slovakia - the late Bishop Methodius (Kanchuka). His short tenure of less than one year, before we 'asked' that he be returned to the Czechoslovak church, was - to be blunt - a disaster and is mostly forgotten by those in the ACROD today.

In a 'perfect' world I suppose I would have preferred a son of one of our parishes who possessed a full knowledge of our history, our struggles and our successes but this world is not a perfect one. I wish the Bishop-elect well and am more that willing to proclaim "Axios."

And if anyone thinks that we have signed our 'death warrant' or sipped on some poison which will wipe us out - well, they don't really know Rusyn culture and the sons and daughters of Duchnovyc.

I knew you would give us the definitive commentary.

(I wondered where you were, but I thought you knew too much and were staying out of it.  Welcome back.)

I was also thinking this morning that God does indeed work His ways in ways which we may not understand. Perhaps, just perhaps, a wise Bishop tending to a flock not of his own ancestral heritage can show Americans a path to Orthodox solidarity and growth beyond the ethnic umbrellas which both shield us and limit us today? I think that the Bishop-elect needs our prayers that he act wisely, in a just manner and in a way which protects small 't' traditions which are not at variance with the Tradition of the entire Church.

[Deacon Lance]

That wan't until 1491, when the Metropolitanate of Kiev and All Rus' had been autocephalous of Constantinople for four decades.

Actually the stauropegial status was granted in 1391.  Before that it was conbtrolled by the Valachians/Romanians.  1491 is the first historical record of a bishop in Mukachevo.  The Rusyns trace their evangelizatiuon to Ss Cyril and Methodius not St Vladimir. 

The "Union of Brest" wasn't enacted by the Metropolitan of Kiev and his suffragans: some of them acquiesced into it.  Others, like the Bishop of Lviv, didn't sign it either.

The bishops of Kyiv, Vladimir, Lutsk, Pinsk, Kholm, Polotsk, Peremyshl, and Lviv all signed.  The bishops of Peremyshl and Lviv  recanted and the union did not occur until 1693 and 1700 in those eparchies.  Again the bishop of Mukachevo had no involvement.

[mike]

The bishops of Kyiv, Vladimir, Lutsk, Pinsk, Kholm, Polotsk, Peremyshl, and Lviv all signed.  The bishops of Peremyshl and Lviv  recanted and the union did not occur until 1693 and 1700 in those eparchies.

No, they didn't. Bishops Michael and Gedeon didn't take part in that Robber Council.

[ialmisry]

The bishops of Kyiv, Vladimir, Lutsk, Pinsk, Kholm, Polotsk, Peremyshl, and Lviv all signed.  The bishops of Peremyshl and Lviv  recanted and the union did not occur until 1693 and 1700 in those eparchies.

No, they didn't. Bishops Michael and Gedeon didn't take part in that Robber Council.

In fact, they took part in the legitimate council deposing and anathematizing those who signed.

[ialmisry]

That wan't until 1491, when the Metropolitanate of Kiev and All Rus' had been autocephalous of Constantinople for four decades.

Actually the stauropegial status was granted in 1391.

You have any documentation on that, Deacon?  I'd like to know the specifics.

Before that it was conbtrolled by the Valachians/Romanians.

 
Moldovans, to actually be specific. The jurisdiction alternated, per the decisions of their Patriarch in Constantinople, between them and Galicia.

1491 is the first historical record of a bishop in Mukachevo.  The Rusyns trace their evangelizatiuon to Ss Cyril and Methodius not St Vladimir. 

They are right.  Their successors, fleeing the suppression of Old Rome, fled to the safety of St. Vladimir and his successors.

The "Union of Brest" wasn't enacted by the Metropolitan of Kiev and his suffragans: some of them acquiesced into it.  Others, like the Bishop of Lviv, didn't sign it either.

The bishops of Kyiv, Vladimir, Lutsk, Pinsk, Kholm, Polotsk, Peremyshl, and Lviv all signed.  The bishops of Peremyshl and Lviv  recanted and the union did not occur until 1693 and 1700 in those eparchies.

Already answered.  The seals of Lviv and Peremyshl were forged.  And when the Austrian Emperor went to Lviv in towards the end of the 1700's, he was met by Orthodox requesting a charter for an Orthodox Church.

Again the bishop of Mukachevo had no involvement.

No good Orthodox Rus' bishop did.

[Deacon Lance]

The bishops of Kyiv, Vladimir, Lutsk, Pinsk, Kholm, Polotsk, Peremyshl, and Lviv all signed.  The bishops of Peremyshl and Lviv  recanted and the union did not occur until 1693 and 1700 in those eparchies.

No, they didn't. Bishops Michael and Gedeon didn't take part in that Robber Council.

The Union of Brest wasn't done in a day.  The process started in 1590.  Bishop Gideon was an early supporter who later rejected the union.  Metropolitan Michael went from supporter to obfusticator back to supporter. 

[mike]

The bishops of Kyiv, Vladimir, Lutsk, Pinsk, Kholm, Polotsk, Peremyshl, and Lviv all signed.  The bishops of Peremyshl and Lviv  recanted and the union did not occur until 1693 and 1700 in those eparchies.

No, they didn't. Bishops Michael and Gedeon didn't take part in that Robber Council.

The Union of Brest wasn't done in a day.  The process started in 1590.  Bishop Gideon was an early supporter who later rejected the union.  Metropolitan Michael went from supporter to obfusticator back to supporter. 

You did not write about "the process". You wrote, they had signed and that is not true. It's a fact they had been considering union but they repented before the union took place.

I've also have not heard that Bishop Michael approved the union later. Are you sure you don't confuse him with Archbishop Meletius?

[Deacon Lance]

You have any documentation on that, Deacon?  I'd like to know the specifics.

I already told you one book to get, another is Byzantine Rite Rusins in Carpatho-Ruthenia and America by Walter Warzeski.  The specifics are there is never a single instance of the Metropolitans of Kyiv or Halych metioning a suffragan in  Mukachevo.  The foundation of the Eparchy of Mukachevo is lost to history but when it is finally mentioned as existing it is by Hungarians and Romanians.

[Deacon Lance]

The bishops of Kyiv, Vladimir, Lutsk, Pinsk, Kholm, Polotsk, Peremyshl, and Lviv all signed.  The bishops of Peremyshl and Lviv  recanted and the union did not occur until 1693 and 1700 in those eparchies.

No, they didn't. Bishops Michael and Gedeon didn't take part in that Robber Council.

The Union of Brest wasn't done in a day.  The process started in 1590.  Bishop Gideon was an early supporter who later rejected the union.  Metropolitan Michael went from supporter to obfusticator back to supporter. 

You did not write about "the process". You wrote, they had signed and that is not true. It's a fact they had been considering union but they repented before the union took place.

I've also have not heard that Bishop Michael approved the union later. Are you sure you don't confuse him with Archbishop Meletius?

Their seals were affixed.  Some say fraudulently. 

I was speaking of Metropolitan Michael of Kyiv not Bishop Michael of Peremyshl.

[mike]

And I'm talking about Bishops Michael (Kopysteński) of Przemyśl and Gedeon (Bałaban) of Lviv who, in presence of the Orthodox clergy, monastics, faithful and representatives from abroad (including St. Cyrill Lukaris) deposed those, who signed the union act.

[podkarpatska]

Since the thread appears to be successfully derailed here, this discussion reminds me of a bar full of baseball fans arguing about whether Reggie Jackson should or should not be in the Hall of Fame given his career batting average and how come the Baseball Hall of Fame never has had a unanimous first year inductee, if Ripken was not, how can Jeter be and so on. I wonder if the Super Bowl line-ups will be debated endlessly in two or three hundred years...such discussions, whether in sports or religion are really not that important to the underlying issue and to the present day. At least that's the way I see it.... (sorry Michal and our non North American readers...I suppose there are similar arguments among World Cup fans...)

[mike]

I'm not interested in TV sport at all. No matter it's football or that American one where people carry a coconut under their armpit and slam others.

[ialmisry]

You have any documentation on that, Deacon?  I'd like to know the specifics.

I already told you one book to get, another is Byzantine Rite Rusins in Carpatho-Ruthenia and America by Walter Warzeski.  The specifics are there is never a single instance of the Metropolitans of Kyiv or Halych metioning a suffragan in  Mukachevo.  The foundation of the Eparchy of Mukachevo is lost to history but when it is finally mentioned as existing it is by Hungarians and Romanians.

Munkács
Diocese in Hungary, of Greek Catholic Rite, suffragan of Gran. It dates from the fifteenth century. Until then the Greek Ruthenians who had emigrated to Hungary a generation before, 1254, were subject to the See of Przemysl. In 1458 the Diocese of Munkács is mentioned for the first time in a document of King Mathias as a parish with episcopal jurisdiction. It was probably established between 1439 and 1458, as the document mentions that Lucas, the occupant of the see, had already exercised the usual jurisdiction for a considerable period. Its history is connected with that of the Basilian monastery at Csernekhegy near Munkács, established supposedly in 1360 by Duke Theodore Koriatovics, but demonstrably as late as 1418. The history of the diocese falls naturally into three periods. Until 1641, when union with Rome took place, Munkács endeavoured to extend its episcopal jurisdiction over the thirteen districts (Komitate) of Hungary, later its territory.

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10634a.htm

[ialmisry]

The bishops of Kyiv, Vladimir, Lutsk, Pinsk, Kholm, Polotsk, Peremyshl, and Lviv all signed.  The bishops of Peremyshl and Lviv  recanted and the union did not occur until 1693 and 1700 in those eparchies.

No, they didn't. Bishops Michael and Gedeon didn't take part in that Robber Council.

The Union of Brest wasn't done in a day.  The process started in 1590.  Bishop Gideon was an early supporter who later rejected the union.  Metropolitan Michael went from supporter to obfusticator back to supporter. 

You did not write about "the process". You wrote, they had signed and that is not true. It's a fact they had been considering union but they repented before the union took place.

I've also have not heard that Bishop Michael approved the union later. Are you sure you don't confuse him with Archbishop Meletius?

Their seals were affixed.  Some say fraudulently. 

I was speaking of Metropolitan Michael of Kyiv not Bishop Michael of Peremyshl.

Since the Metropolitanate of Kiev was not autocephalous, the whole thing was manifestly fraudulent, the reason why the Swedish King of Poland shut all the Churches of Brest, in the vain hope that the Orthodox of the Metropolitanate could not deal with the apostates.

[Deacon Lance]

Munkács
Diocese in Hungary, of Greek Catholic Rite, suffragan of Gran. It dates from the fifteenth century. Until then the Greek Ruthenians who had emigrated to Hungary a generation before, 1254, were subject to the See of Przemysl. In 1458 the Diocese of Munkács is mentioned for the first time in a document of King Mathias as a parish with episcopal jurisdiction. It was probably established between 1439 and 1458, as the document mentions that Lucas, the occupant of the see, had already exercised the usual jurisdiction for a considerable period. Its history is connected with that of the Basilian monastery at Csernekhegy near Munkács, established supposedly in 1360 by Duke Theodore Koriatovics, but demonstrably as late as 1418. The history of the diocese falls naturally into three periods. Until 1641, when union with Rome took place, Munkács endeavoured to extend its episcopal jurisdiction over the thirteen districts (Komitate) of Hungary, later its territory.

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10634a.htm

I give you two published scholarly works and you give me an article from an outdated encyclopedia that has been superceded by said scholarship, unbelieveable.

[Deacon Lance]

Since the thread appears to be successfully derailed here, this discussion reminds me of a bar full of baseball fans arguing about whether Reggie Jackson should or should not be in the Hall of Fame given his career batting average and how come the Baseball Hall of Fame never has had a unanimous first year inductee, if Ripken was not, how can Jeter be and so on. I wonder if the Super Bowl line-ups will be debated endlessly in two or three hundred years...such discussions, whether in sports or religion are really not that important to the underlying issue and to the present day. At least that's the way I see it.... (sorry Michal and our non North American readers...I suppose there are similar arguments among World Cup fans...)

My apologies, I should know better.

[ialmisry]

Munkács
Diocese in Hungary, of Greek Catholic Rite, suffragan of Gran. It dates from the fifteenth century. Until then the Greek Ruthenians who had emigrated to Hungary a generation before, 1254, were subject to the See of Przemysl. In 1458 the Diocese of Munkács is mentioned for the first time in a document of King Mathias as a parish with episcopal jurisdiction. It was probably established between 1439 and 1458, as the document mentions that Lucas, the occupant of the see, had already exercised the usual jurisdiction for a considerable period. Its history is connected with that of the Basilian monastery at Csernekhegy near Munkács, established supposedly in 1360 by Duke Theodore Koriatovics, but demonstrably as late as 1418. The history of the diocese falls naturally into three periods. Until 1641, when union with Rome took place, Munkács endeavoured to extend its episcopal jurisdiction over the thirteen districts (Komitate) of Hungary, later its territory.

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10634a.htm

I give you two published scholarly works and you give me an article from an outdated encyclopedia that has been superceded by said scholarship, unbelieveable.

You mentioned the title of one work not readily available, and another only less so, which you claim supercede what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says, which is mostly outdated in that it doesn't parse its words with the "spirit of Vatican II."  You gave no citation on which to evaluate your claims.

[Schultz]

Munkács
Diocese in Hungary, of Greek Catholic Rite, suffragan of Gran. It dates from the fifteenth century. Until then the Greek Ruthenians who had emigrated to Hungary a generation before, 1254, were subject to the See of Przemysl. In 1458 the Diocese of Munkács is mentioned for the first time in a document of King Mathias as a parish with episcopal jurisdiction. It was probably established between 1439 and 1458, as the document mentions that Lucas, the occupant of the see, had already exercised the usual jurisdiction for a considerable period. Its history is connected with that of the Basilian monastery at Csernekhegy near Munkács, established supposedly in 1360 by Duke Theodore Koriatovics, but demonstrably as late as 1418. The history of the diocese falls naturally into three periods. Until 1641, when union with Rome took place, Munkács endeavoured to extend its episcopal jurisdiction over the thirteen districts (Komitate) of Hungary, later its territory.

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10634a.htm

I give you two published scholarly works and you give me an article from an outdated encyclopedia that has been superceded by said scholarship, unbelieveable.

You mentioned the title of one work not readily available, and another only less so, which you claim supercede what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says, which is mostly outdated in that it doesn't parse its words with the "spirit of Vatican II."  You gave no citation on which to evaluate your claims.

Both are readily available via interlibrary loan; a quick search of worldcat shows multiple editions available in a number of university libraries, most of whom participate in interlibrary loan.  Just because something isn't on googlebooks doesn't mean it's not readily available.  And even if Deacon Lance had given chapter and verse, you'd still bitch about him not giving you sources that you can find on the internet or in your local Barnes and Noble.  That's not fair and it's not Deacon Lance's fault if you can't step back and check his sources once you receive them via interlibrary loan, which I know you know how to use.  As for the veracity of the Catholic Encyclopedia, both were written long after the original publication of that title and both most likely contain documentary evidence unavailable at the time of the former's publication, hence the newer conclusions.  It has nothing to do with the so-called Spirit of Vatican II and you most certainly know that.  Quit acting like a boorish ass as you're only hurting your case.

[podkarpatska]

Munkács
Diocese in Hungary, of Greek Catholic Rite, suffragan of Gran. It dates from the fifteenth century. Until then the Greek Ruthenians who had emigrated to Hungary a generation before, 1254, were subject to the See of Przemysl. In 1458 the Diocese of Munkács is mentioned for the first time in a document of King Mathias as a parish with episcopal jurisdiction. It was probably established between 1439 and 1458, as the document mentions that Lucas, the occupant of the see, had already exercised the usual jurisdiction for a considerable period. Its history is connected with that of the Basilian monastery at Csernekhegy near Munkács, established supposedly in 1360 by Duke Theodore Koriatovics, but demonstrably as late as 1418. The history of the diocese falls naturally into three periods. Until 1641, when union with Rome took place, Munkács endeavoured to extend its episcopal jurisdiction over the thirteen districts (Komitate) of Hungary, later its territory.

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10634a.htm

I give you two published scholarly works and you give me an article from an outdated encyclopedia that has been superceded by said scholarship, unbelieveable.

You mentioned the title of one work not readily available, and another only less so, which you claim supercede what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says, which is mostly outdated in that it doesn't parse its words with the "spirit of Vatican II."  You gave no citation on which to evaluate your claims.

Both are readily available via interlibrary loan; a quick search of worldcat shows multiple editions available in a number of university libraries, most of whom participate in interlibrary loan.  Just because something isn't on googlebooks doesn't mean it's not readily available.  And even if Deacon Lance had given chapter and verse, you'd still bitch about him not giving you sources that you can find on the internet or in your local Barnes and Noble.  That's not fair and it's not Deacon Lance's fault if you can't step back and check his sources once you receive them via interlibrary loan, which I know you know how to use.  As for the veracity of the Catholic Encyclopedia, both were written long after the original publication of that title and both most likely contain documentary evidence unavailable at the time of the former's publication, hence the newer conclusions.  It has nothing to do with the so-called Spirit of Vatican II and you most certainly know that.  Quit acting like a boorish ass as you're only hurting your case.

I have to say that I really don't care which long dead Bishop was motivated by whatever reasons to enter in the Unions. We can debate the efficacy of the whole process till the cows come home and we can sling charges and counter-charges against each other's positions for an equally long time.

HOWEVER - I will posit a serious question and one which I am sure many of you will find distasteful.

In the lands populated in part at the time of the various unions by Orthodox Christians BUT ruled by Princes and Kings whose loyalties were to Rome or Luther's followers - can we honestly judge the motivations of those bishops and the real pressures that they faced without the benefit of historical perspective? After all, during the same period of time the minority Orthodox populations were not alone in their inability to deal with political pressure and armed force. In England, the forces of Henry VIII persecuted those loyal to the Church of Rome with zeal and force - while on the continent one hundred and fifty years of civil war and strife went on between those loyal to Rome and the various Protestant groups etc.... Looking at the reality of life in those long past centuries, was it unreasonable for some of the episcopacy to 'place their bets' with the local Prince or King? Was it not a real fear that were they not to accede to the terms of union that all which they held dear - that is their loyalty and links to eastern Christianity - might have been completely severed and today those of us who are their descendants might be Lutheran or Roman Catholic?

In England and in the Austro-Hungarian empires things did begin to change in the nineteenth century. In England the Anglo-Catholic movement began while in the east, an Orthodox revival began and played out in the United States as well.

I know I am rambling but had there been no union I suspect there would have been no Orthodox Church either in the lands of the Slovaks, Magyars and Galicians where the Rusyns and Ukrainians were a strong and visible religious and cultural minority and where they were the 'bottom' of the societal ladder of the day.

[ialmisry]

Munkács
Diocese in Hungary, of Greek Catholic Rite, suffragan of Gran. It dates from the fifteenth century. Until then the Greek Ruthenians who had emigrated to Hungary a generation before, 1254, were subject to the See of Przemysl. In 1458 the Diocese of Munkács is mentioned for the first time in a document of King Mathias as a parish with episcopal jurisdiction. It was probably established between 1439 and 1458, as the document mentions that Lucas, the occupant of the see, had already exercised the usual jurisdiction for a considerable period. Its history is connected with that of the Basilian monastery at Csernekhegy near Munkács, established supposedly in 1360 by Duke Theodore Koriatovics, but demonstrably as late as 1418. The history of the diocese falls naturally into three periods. Until 1641, when union with Rome took place, Munkács endeavoured to extend its episcopal jurisdiction over the thirteen districts (Komitate) of Hungary, later its territory.

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10634a.htm

I give you two published scholarly works and you give me an article from an outdated encyclopedia that has been superceded by said scholarship, unbelieveable.

You mentioned the title of one work not readily available, and another only less so, which you claim supercede what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says, which is mostly outdated in that it doesn't parse its words with the "spirit of Vatican II."  You gave no citation on which to evaluate your claims.

Both are readily available via interlibrary loan; a quick search of worldcat shows multiple editions available in a number of university libraries, most of whom participate in interlibrary loan.  Just because something isn't on googlebooks doesn't mean it's not readily available.

According to World Cat, the nearest copy for the one is on the other side of Indiana, and the one is further off.  Readily available means I can get it in a few days.

And even if Deacon Lance had given chapter and verse, you'd still bitch about him not giving you sources that you can find on the internet or in your local Barnes and Noble.

I can't get them at the University of Chicago Library either.  I had a similar beef about references to the work of Met. Maximos of Sardes on the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which I did find finally in a French translation at Loyola (I'd still like to see the Greek), and at last has been put on line at google.

That's not fair and it's not Deacon Lance's fault if you can't step back and check his sources once you receive them via interlibrary loan, which I know you know how to use.  As for the veracity of the Catholic Encyclopedia, both were written long after the original publication of that title and both most likely contain documentary evidence unavailable at the time of the former's publication, hence the newer conclusions.

Deacon Lance's sources draw on the same source the CE does, without, it seems, coming up with newer conclusions.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KgkOAQAAMAAJ&q=%22Indeed+in+his+report+of+1652+he+added+that+the+consecrator+had+said+with+a+sigh%22&dq=%22Indeed+in+his+report+of+1652+he+added+that+the+consecrator+had+said+with+a+sigh%22&source=bl&ots=65GnpCukIl&sig=4OeA2MdjsA3M3ayKnJUzpfgKPsI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HMtGUKviCMjsrQGeyoF4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA

So, the electors, without waiting for confirmation from Rome, sent off Peter Parthenius immediately after his election to Transylvania to the archbishop and metropolitan of Alba Julia, Stephen Simonovic, who, with two other bishops; Sava of Bystritsa and Gregory of Moldavia assisting, proceeded to consecrate him.

Lippay informed Rome that Archbishop Simonovic knew that Parthenius was already united and that, as such, he had consecrated him willingly.   Indeed in his report of 1652 he added that the consecrator had said with a sigh: "Would that I too could profess the same Union", which proves that Stephen Simonovic was sympathetic to Union and gives the reason why he did not demand from Parthenius "a schismatical profession of faith."

When all had been duly done, Archibishop Simonovic gave Parthenius testimonial letters, in which he first enumerated all the documents that Parthenius had produced to prove the legitimacy of his election, then he attested that Parthenius had then he attested that Parthenius had been properly concecrated in accordance with the sacred canons and constituted bishop of Mukacevo to succeed Basil Tarasovic "lately dead."  Archbishop Lippay sent a copy of this document to Rome with his own letter and it is probablypreserved in the archives of the Congregation of the Holy Office with the other papers that deal with the confirmation of Parthenius. We have the text of another copy, that has been edited by Hodinka.

That is, A. Hodinka, A munkácsi görög-katholikus püspökség története "History of the Greek Catholic See of Munkács" (Budapest, 1910), i.e the SAME source for the old CE article.

Couple of problems with all this, starting with the concern about denying that St. Stefan Simonovci (he was glorified last year, feast day April 24) "did not demand from Parthenius "a schismatical profession of faith.""  György Lippay was the Vatican's Archbishop of Esztergom, primate of the Kingdom of Hungary.  He had plenty of his own bishops to ordain Parthenius, why didn't he?  Why did they insist on Orthodox bishops consecrating Parthenius, especially when there was an known Orthodox candidate, Johannicius Zajkán, and two days after the "consecration," György Lippay was requesting that the Vatican dispense the irregularity in Parthenius' admission to the episcopate?
(for these issues, see István Baán, Appointments to the episcopal see in Munkács 1650−1690)  byzantinohungarica.hu/sites/default/files/baan_angol_nilles.pdf
Like the rush "synod" of Damascus in 1724, the Robber Synod of Brest in 1596 (complete with its forged seals of the bishops who refused to sign), and the "Holy Roman Emperor" delegation of Athanasius to Bucharest for consecration for the "union" of Alba Iulia, the sending of Parthenius to Alba Iulia took its place in the chronicles of the "return to catholic communion" so called.  All come from the same aim: attempting to legitimize the illegitimate.

Somewhere here (or perhaps Byzcath) someone (Deacon Lance?) posted that St. Stefan consecrated Parfenii knowing that he was not Orthodox(whoever it was who posted it, they made the mistake that it was a Moldavian bishop with Transylvanian bishops in attendance). It seems that his source, Lacko, just swallows Lippay's account that 'that the consecrator had said with a sigh: "Would that I too could profess the same Union", which proves that Stephen Simonovic was sympathetic to Union and gives the reason why he did not demand from Parthenius "a schismatical profession of faith""-I trust that you know hearsay when you see it.

St. Stefan had taken the see of Belgrad/Alba Iulie at a time when he had to preserve the Orthodox Church under the Calvinist facade of the Superintendent, which he did.  A few years earlier the whole Orthodox world gathered in Moldavia-Gregory's homeland and St. Stefan's neighbor and kin-to adopt St. Peter Movila (also from Moldavia)'s Orthodox Confession, but only after, over St. Peter's strenous objections, it had been revised to purge its Latinizations and Vatican influence. Given the opposition to such teaching, addressed by St. Stefan himself (he used the Calvinist doctrine to publish the New Testament, Psalter etc. in Romanian, with annotations to the reader), and the fact that the "Most Catholic Majesty" the Habsburg could not control his Calvnist vassal in Transylvania, no reason is forthcoming on why St. Stefan would "sigh."  If nothing else, he could easily joined ranks with the Vatican considerable flock in Transylvania and turned the tables on the Calvnisits, as was attempted when the Habsburgs instituted direct rule a 30 years later.

Why the insistence that "a schismatical profession of faith"-i.e. the confession of the Orthodox Faith demanded before any consecration-was not demanded, except that it would expose the fraud for what it was.  We know that the "unions" were not above it, as we know the scheme a few decades later with St. Stefan's successor Athansius in some detail-Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem was in Bucharest for the consecration and left behind detailed instructions given to and demanded of Athanasius, who, once consecrated, went back to Alba Iulia to break his sacred vows.  The "consecration" of Cyril VI as "Patriarch of Antioch" in Damascus avoided that problem-it was done in the Latin rite, by three bishops in the Patriarchate only because the Sultan's firman outlawed leaving it.

It has nothing to do with the so-called Spirit of Vatican II and you most certainly know that.

They don't come out and spit out what they say anymore.  Like this idea of "joint communion."  It is insisted now that, for instance, Kiev was in communion with both Old and New Rome, offered as a proof that the schism wasn't real or the Easterners thirsted for the Vatican's chalice, could be in communion with the Latin Pope but keep their Eastern traditions, etc. etc. etc.  Earlier, the likes of Fortescue would underline that the Vatican demanded that those who submitted to it cease communion with the Orthodox, a stipulation that many find impolite to admit now.

Quit acting like a boorish ass as you're only hurting your case.

Amongst the minutiae of details of history, I like to have a few irrefutable facts, sort of trip wires for my BS meter.  When someone trips it, it goes off.

Among them is this idea that were it not for the Czar and not for the Sultan, we all would have submitted to the Vatican and been one happy family.  Without the "help" of the pope's crusading legions.

On Parfenii's successor, Deacon Lance's source says

He also confirms the fact that, after the Union of Brest, the bishops of Mukacevo no longer received their consecration from the Metropolitan of Kiev, because he was a Catholic. Susza did not know where they were consecrated. We do...The metropolitan of Kiev urged the ancient dependence of the See of Mukacevo on his ecclesiastical province, and deputed James Susza, Bishop of Chelm, to uphold his cause in Rome.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KgkOAQAAMAAJ&q=%22The+metropolitan+of+Kiev+urged+the+ancient+dependence+of+the+See+of+Mukacevo+on+his+ecclesiastical+province.&dq=%22The+metropolitan+of+Kiev+urged+the+ancient+dependence+of+the+See+of+Mukacevo+on+his+ecclesiastical+province.&source=bl&ots=65GnpDvdzl&sig=uUgTcxKdIZiGlzZzXNvbBlB80Xk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_vJGULnkH4TLqAHs1IGABg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ
http://books.google.com/books?id=KgkOAQAAMAAJ&q=%22He+also+confirms+the+fact+that,+after+the+Union+of+Brest,+the+bishops+of+Mukacevo+no+longer+received+their+consecration+from+the+Metropolitan+of+Kiev%22&dq=%22He+also+confirms+the+fact+that,+after+the+Union+of+Brest,+the+bishops+of+Mukacevo+no+longer+received+their+consecration+from+the+Metropolitan+of+Kiev%22&source=bl&ots=65GnpDvjBj&sig=kQaJtKz2q5TVuQ0CFXks4OTdBus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aPVGUNS3JsTcqgHzxYGQBA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA
how this squares with Deacon Lance's assertion "Before the union of Uzhorord, Mukachevo answered to Constantinople via Transylvania whose metropolitans ordained the bishops for Mukachevo.  It was never under Kyiv or Lviv" I can't tell.

[mike]

and cases of ouzo in place of Becherova

They taste alike. Both are undrinkable.

[podkarpatska]

and cases of ouzo in place of Becherova

They taste alike. Both are undrinkable.

At the risk of being kicked out of the Rusyn Club, I have to agree with you on this one! Pass me a cold Saris Beer!

[mike]

I haven't been to Slovakia for about 5 years... Sharish indeed is good.

[Αριστοκλής]

and cases of ouzo in place of Becherova

They taste alike. Both are undrinkable.

At the risk of being kicked out of the Rusyn Club, I have to agree with you on this one! Pass me a cold Saris Beer!

At the risk of being kicked out of the Hellenic-Rusyn Club, I must agree.

[Deacon Lance]

Isa's cut and paste:

On Parfenii's successor, Deacon Lance's source says

He also confirms the fact that, after the Union of Brest, the bishops of Mukacevo no longer received their consecration from the Metropolitan of Kiev, because he was a Catholic. Susza did not know where they were consecrated. We do...The metropolitan of Kiev urged the ancient dependence of the See of Mukacevo on his ecclesiastical province, and deputed James Susza, Bishop of Chelm, to uphold his cause in Rome.

The paragraph without Isa's deletion:

He also confirms the fact that, after the Union of Brest, the bishops of Mukacevo no longer received their consecration from the Metropolitan of Kiev, because he was a Catholic. Susza did not know where they were consecrated. We do.  They were most frequently consecrated by the Metropolitan of Moldavia. (Lacko Pg 45)

One must also understand the motivation of the Bishop of Chelm.   Bishop James Susza and his predecessor tried to assert their jurisdiction in the area so of course they were going to claim it was part of Kyiv-Halych to bolster their claim. 

[Deacon Lance]

Munkács
Diocese in Hungary, of Greek Catholic Rite, suffragan of Gran. It dates from the fifteenth century. Until then the Greek Ruthenians who had emigrated to Hungary a generation before, 1254, were subject to the See of Przemysl. In 1458 the Diocese of Munkács is mentioned for the first time in a document of King Mathias as a parish with episcopal jurisdiction. It was probably established between 1439 and 1458, as the document mentions that Lucas, the occupant of the see, had already exercised the usual jurisdiction for a considerable period. Its history is connected with that of the Basilian monastery at Csernekhegy near Munkács, established supposedly in 1360 by Duke Theodore Koriatovics, but demonstrably as late as 1418. The history of the diocese falls naturally into three periods. Until 1641, when union with Rome took place, Munkács endeavoured to extend its episcopal jurisdiction over the thirteen districts (Komitate) of Hungary, later its territory.

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10634a.htm

That piece is based on the fact that Bishop Athanasius Krupeckyj of Peremysl exercised jurisdiction in parts of the county of Spis which were parts of the Polish Kingdom at that time. (Lacko 43-44)

[ialmisry]

Isa's cut and paste:

On Parfenii's successor, Deacon Lance's source says

He also confirms the fact that, after the Union of Brest, the bishops of Mukacevo no longer received their consecration from the Metropolitan of Kiev, because he was a Catholic. Susza did not know where they were consecrated. We do...The metropolitan of Kiev urged the ancient dependence of the See of Mukacevo on his ecclesiastical province, and deputed James Susza, Bishop of Chelm, to uphold his cause in Rome.

The paragraph without Isa's deletion:

He also confirms the fact that, after the Union of Brest, the bishops of Mukacevo no longer received their consecration from the Metropolitan of Kiev, because he was a Catholic. Susza did not know where they were consecrated. We do.  They were most frequently consecrated by the Metropolitan of Moldavia. (Lacko Pg 45)

One must also understand the motivation of the Bishop of Chelm.   Bishop James Susza and his predecessor tried to assert their jurisdiction in the area so of course they were going to claim it was part of Kyiv-Halych to bolster their claim. 

No deletion.  Your source refers to the bishops of Mukacevo receiving their consecration from the Metropolitan of Kiev as a fact, one that didn't apply after 1596, after which they received consecration from the Metropolitan of Moldavia (who had exercised jurisdiction in Galicia, and vice versa, at times).  Given that I gave at LENGTH the facts of the consecration of Petru Parfenii in 1651, i.e. after 1596, including the involvement of the Metropolitan of Moldavia, there was no reason to belabor that point when talking about the erection of the diocese and its prior history, which we know pre-dated 1596.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Christian News (Moderator: Yurysprudentsiya) > Topic: Successor Hierarch for the ACROD?