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available, and another only less so, which you claim supercede what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says, which is mostly outdated in that it doesn't parse its words with the "spirit of Vatican II."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.
MunkácsNihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
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.
I give you two published scholarly works and you give me an article from an outdated encyclopedia that has been superceded by said scholarship, unbelieveable.
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=0CDYQ6AEwAQhttp://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.