Topic: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime

[jah777]

Here is an article recently posted concerning the Vatican and the Unia, by Protopresbyter Fr. George Metallinos, esteemed Dean Emeritus of the Athens School of Theology.

http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2011/08/10/20110810aVaticanTorpedo%20Folder/20110810aVaticanTorpedo.pdf

More about Fr. George:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Metallinos

[mike]

He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

[J Michael]

He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

Indeed!

[ialmisry]

He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

How could that be, as it outlawed Orthodoxy, executed Orthodox (e.g. St. Athanasius of Brest), and seized all their Churches?

[mike]

He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

How could that be, as it outlawed Orthodoxy, executed Orthodox (e.g. St. Athanasius of Brest), and seized all their Churches?

Most of the ordinary people has not noticed Unia. Exceptions were persecuted.

[podkarpatska]

Michal is right.

This points out EXACTLY what I have said over and over again regarding the Unia, Greek Catholics, those of us who came home to the Orthodox Church, the experience of peoples impacted by the various Unia and the great struggles that both the Greek Catholic and Orthodox faithful have had to endure under both the yoke of Romanism and the expectations of the Orthodox, primarily in my case the Russians.

Neither the Romans nor the Orthodox who come from outside of OUR experience fully comprehend, understand or even try to understand the entire issue.

[Papist]

Michal is right.

This points out EXACTLY what I have said over and over again regarding the Unia, Greek Catholics, those of us who came home to the Orthodox Church, the experience of peoples impacted by the various Unia and the great struggles that both the Greek Catholic and Orthodox faithful have had to endure under both the yoke of Romanism and the expectations of the Orthodox, primarily in my case the Russians.

Neither the Romans nor the Orthodox who come from outside of OUR experience fully comprehend, understand or even try to understand the entire issue.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't get it.

[Wyatt]

Michal is right.

This points out EXACTLY what I have said over and over again regarding the Unia, Greek Catholics, those of us who came home to the Orthodox Church, the experience of peoples impacted by the various Unia and the great struggles that both the Greek Catholic and Orthodox faithful have had to endure under both the yoke of Romanism and the expectations of the Orthodox, primarily in my case the Russians.

Neither the Romans nor the Orthodox who come from outside of OUR experience fully comprehend, understand or even try to understand the entire issue.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't get it.

I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.

[podkarpatska]

Michal is right.

This points out EXACTLY what I have said over and over again regarding the Unia, Greek Catholics, those of us who came home to the Orthodox Church, the experience of peoples impacted by the various Unia and the great struggles that both the Greek Catholic and Orthodox faithful have had to endure under both the yoke of Romanism and the expectations of the Orthodox, primarily in my case the Russians.

Neither the Romans nor the Orthodox who come from outside of OUR experience fully comprehend, understand or even try to understand the entire issue.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't get it.

I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.

Well, we agree on something! We Orthodox don't get the argument that one can be in full communion with Rome without accepting the entirety of the Magesterium. There are critical doctrinal differences among us that preclude our being in communion with each other. I don't think that there is a 'pick and choose' option available to either the Orthodox or the Romans. If there were such an option, we wouldn't still be divided after 1000 years!

[Severian]

I don't think this is going to end well...

[biro]

I don't think this is going to end well...

I have the same feeling. 

[Severian]

So it would seem as if the EO Church isn't the only Church in a state of disunity, the Latin Catholics have their fair share of problems to resolve with the Eastern Catholics.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited!  I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other.

[podkarpatska]

I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.

So it would seem that your own communion has somewhat of a disunity in faith. With that considered, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize the EO for being so disunited. I am not saying this to be rude, so please don't get me wrong, I am simply raising a point for you to ponder on.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other.  

God bless.

LOL

[Wyatt]

I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.

So it would seem as if the EO Church isn't the only Church in a state of disunity, the Latin Catholics have their fair share of problems to resolve with the Eastern Catholics.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other.  

God bless.

Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

[stanley123]

I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.

So it would seem that your own communion has somewhat of a disunity in faith. With that considered, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize the EO for being so disunited. I am not saying this to be rude, so please don't get me wrong, I am simply raising a point for you to ponder on.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other.  

God bless.

Yes. I oftentimes wondered about that especially with our belief in the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. What exactly is meant by the declaration that we are ONE Church. I think that both Churches, EO and RC stretch things a bit here, but of course, there is a point to what is essential to the teaching of the Church and to what extent a teaching may be open to some interpretation. Take for example the teaching on whether or not women are to wear headcovering in Church especially during the DL. Well, has it not been taught for 1900 years that this rule must be followed? Then all of a sudden, we see that it is disregarded by many women in the USA.  

[Schultz]

I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.

So it would seem as if the EO Church isn't the only Church in a state of disunity, the Latin Catholics have their fair share of problems to resolve with the Eastern Catholics.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other.  

God bless.

Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

Kind of like asking, "Which papal pronouncements are ex cathedra?".  If you don't like what one priest says, you can just ask another.

[Wyatt]

I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.

So it would seem as if the EO Church isn't the only Church in a state of disunity, the Latin Catholics have their fair share of problems to resolve with the Eastern Catholics.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other.  

God bless.

Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

Kind of like asking, "Which papal pronouncements are ex cathedra?".  If you don't like what one priest says, you can just ask another.

Touche 

[Severian]

Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.

[stanley123]

Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.

OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?

[Severian]

OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?

That's a good question, but I am too ignorant to answer. I know there is a distinction between the two but I don't know what it is. But don't let my ignorance influence you, I am merely an Orthodox layperson. I am sure my more knowledgeable coreligionists can answer that question adequately for you. Sorry. 

[ialmisry]

I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.

So it would seem that your own communion has somewhat of a disunity in faith. With that considered, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize the EO for being so disunited. I am not saying this to be rude, so please don't get me wrong, I am simply raising a point for you to ponder on.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other.  

God bless.

Yes. I oftentimes wondered about that especially with our belief in the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. What exactly is meant by the declaration that we are ONE Church. I think that both Churches, EO and RC stretch things a bit here, but of course, there is a point to what is essential to the teaching of the Church and to what extent a teaching may be open to some interpretation. Take for example the teaching on whether or not women are to wear headcovering in Church especially during the DL. Well, has it not been taught for 1900 years that this rule must be followed? Then all of a sudden, we see that it is disregarded by many women in the USA.  

really got a thing about head coverings, huh.

for more WARNING, the veil is all she is wearing
http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2008/12/medium_playboymary.jpeg

[stanley123]

I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.

So it would seem that your own communion has somewhat of a disunity in faith. With that considered, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize the EO for being so disunited. I am not saying this to be rude, so please don't get me wrong, I am simply raising a point for you to ponder on.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other.  

God bless.

Yes. I oftentimes wondered about that especially with our belief in the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. What exactly is meant by the declaration that we are ONE Church. I think that both Churches, EO and RC stretch things a bit here, but of course, there is a point to what is essential to the teaching of the Church and to what extent a teaching may be open to some interpretation. Take for example the teaching on whether or not women are to wear headcovering in Church especially during the DL. Well, has it not been taught for 1900 years that this rule must be followed? Then all of a sudden, we see that it is disregarded by many women in the USA.  

really got a thing about head coverings, huh.

for more WARNING, the veil is all she is wearing
http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2008/12/medium_playboymary.jpeg

LOL. Nice one.

[ialmisry]

Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.

OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?

Dogma, something everyone, everywhere at all times have recognized as true.  Doctrine, what is held as true based on dogma.

To make a comparison with the common law, dogma is statute, doctrine case law.

[stanley123]

Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.

OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?

Dogma, something everyone, everywhere at all times have recognized as true.  

I think your definition is a bit too general. Everyone recognises at all times that water is necessary for life, and that 1+1=2, but these would  not be called dogmas.

[ialmisry]

Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.

OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?

Dogma, something everyone, everywhere at all times have recognized as true.  

I think your definition is a bit too general. Everyone recognises at all times that water is necessary for life, and that 1+1=2, but these would  not be called dogmas.

I thought we were talking theology, not biology nor mathematics.

[Severian]

^So I assume that the Trinity would be recognized as 'dogma', but what would be an example of a 'doctrine'?

[stanley123]

Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.

OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?

Dogma, something everyone, everywhere at all times have recognized as true. 

I think your definition is a bit too general. Everyone recognises at all times that water is necessary for life, and that 1+1=2, but these would  not be called dogmas.

I thought we were talking theology, not biology nor mathematics.

Even for theology, your definition is still a bit too general. Not everyone at all times has recognised that Jesus was the second person of the Blessed Trinity. . Take Arius for example. Not everyone at all times has recognised that Mary was the Theotokos.
I would say that dogma are the authoritative, established, core teachings of the Church. It is a basic truth of the faith which the Church has declared must be held by the faithful.

[stanley123]

^So I assume that the Trinity would be recognized as 'dogma', but what would be an example of a 'doctrine'?

To take a guess: The doctrine that one has a right to defend oneself and one's family in the case of an attack? The doctrine that, if officially called by the state,  you have the right to serve on a jury and sit in judgment of someone?

[Dave in McKinney]

The Catholic church usually refers to dogmas and disciplines.
For example: 
Trinity is a dogma (eternal truth)
Celibate priests is a discipline (can change with time.  Rome could allow married.men to become priests.some day)

[ialmisry]

Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.

OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?

Dogma, something everyone, everywhere at all times have recognized as true. 

I think your definition is a bit too general. Everyone recognises at all times that water is necessary for life, and that 1+1=2, but these would  not be called dogmas.

I thought we were talking theology, not biology nor mathematics.

Even for theology, your definition is still a bit too general. Not everyone at all times has recognised that Jesus was the second person of the Blessed Trinity. . Take Arius for example. Not everyone at all times has recognised that Mary was the Theotokos.

Yes, then, as now, we call them heretics.  Their opinions do not count.

I would say that dogma are the authoritative, established, core teachings of the Church. It is a basic truth of the faith which the Church has declared must be held by the faithful.

I can run with that.

[ialmisry]

^So I assume that the Trinity would be recognized as 'dogma', but what would be an example of a 'doctrine'?

Since we are in the season, I'd say the doctrine of the Assumption is the most dogmatic doctrine: not at the level of dogma like the Trinty, not always believed (at least by everyone:it was locally known in Jerusalem, but not being dogma, wasn't spread abroad in the Church's preaching), but true.

[elijahmaria]

^So I assume that the Trinity would be recognized as 'dogma', but what would be an example of a 'doctrine'?

In my one holy catholic and apostolic Church, doctrine is the deposit of faith, or those truths of the faith that are revealed to us through Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

Dogma are individual parts of that universal/whole/catholic deposit of faith that have been more clearly defined for us by the power of the Holy Spirit.

One is not in any way more true or necessary than any other: doctrine or dogma.  All dogma means is that a doctrinal truth is defined more clearly.

Mary

[ialmisry]

^So I assume that the Trinity would be recognized as 'dogma', but what would be an example of a 'doctrine'?

In my one holy catholic and apostolic Church, doctrine is the deposit of faith, or those truths of the faith that are revealed to us through Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

Dogma are individual parts of that universal/whole/catholic deposit of faith that have been more clearly defined for us by the power of the Holy Spirit.

One is not in any way more true or necessary than any other: doctrine or dogma.  All dogma means is that a doctrinal truth is defined more clearly.

you forgot "developed." You know, that knack the Vatican has for taking what is flat out denied and making into "the Gospel Truth."

[Shiny]

(at least by everyone:it was locally known in Jerusalem, but not being dogma, wasn't spread abroad in the Church's preaching).

I'm surpised that wasn't dogma as soon as she was assumed. The Theotokos' assumption has always fascinated me and I wish I could learn more about it.

[ialmisry]

(at least by everyone:it was locally known in Jerusalem, but not being dogma, wasn't spread abroad in the Church's preaching).

I'm surpised that wasn't dogma as soon as she was assumed.

Not central to the Gospel.  It's not like the Resurrection of Christ.  Just because something is true doesn't mean it has be be believed on penalty of damnation, as the Vatican has had it since 1950.

The Theotokos' assumption has always fascinated me and I wish I could learn more about it.

Somewhere I posted some examples of too much fasination being the reason why it wasn't published abroad.

[WetCatechumen]

The title of this thread does not sit well with me.

[ialmisry]

The title of this thread does not sit well with me.

Sits fine with me.

I also

I vote aye

"For where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I among them...."I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.  Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven."
All those in favor

Aye!

All those opposed.

No!


The ayes have it.

[IreneOlinyk]

He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

I agree with Michael.  I will look around for some good source material for you on the Union of Brest.  It really wasn't a union because of sobornost: the priests and laity refused to accept it.  And as for the so-called Articles of Brest: the Pope never even signed them.

[IreneOlinyk]

jah777: there are some good history books around that discuss the Union of Brest written by historians (all connected with universites) who are Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.  All agree with what Michael has written. It is unfortunate that the Greek orthodox writer did not consult some good history books.

here is a quote from Prof. P. R. Magosci's book:

    "It was at this critical juncture that relations between Ostroz'kyi and the prounion Orthodox bishops broke down. Instead of promoting Ostroz'kyi's allencompassing approach, Bishop Potii, together with Bishop Kyrylo Terlets'kyi of Luts'k (reigned 1585-1607), issued two letters of intent (December 1594 and June 1595) pledging allegiance to Rome. The letters of intent were then approved by the Polish king. In response, Ostroz'kyi condemned what he called 'our faithless pastors, the metropolitan and bishops, [who] through the evil and cunning work of the ever-malign devil [have become] tempted by the glories of this world, and blinded by their desire for pleasures ... have forsaken our holy patriarchs and gone over to the Latin side.' 2 Ostroz'kyi's criticism did have an effect, since even Bishop Balaban of L'viv, one of the earliest initiators of the movement, now repudiated the idea of union.
 
    Nevertheless, the pro-union bishops, joined by Metropolitan Mykhail Rahoza (reigned 1589-1599), pressed forward, and in June 1595, during an episcopal synod at Brest, they approved a document containing thirty-three articles that set forth their understanding of union with Rome. This document later came to be considered the 'constitution' of the Kievan metropolitanate for union with the church of Rome, and it addressed theological, liturgical, ritual, administrative, and interchurch matters. The underlying concern was that the union with Rome would not change Eastern church practices, such as use of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom, the Slavonic rite, the Julian calendar, a married clergy, and administrative autonomy.
   
    In December 1595, Bishops Potii and Terlets'kyi took the two episcopal letters and the Brest articles to Rome . It is important to note that the pope neither approved nor rejected the proposed articles. Instead, on 23 December he issued a papal decree (Magnus Dominus et laudabilis) recognizing 'all sacred rites and ceremonies which the Ruthenian [Rus'] bishops and clergy use' as long as they were 'not opposed to the truth and doctrine of the Catholic faith.' 3 Thus, what later members of the Uniate or Greek Catholic church believed to be their historic rights guaranteed by the Union of Brest were nothing more than their own demands, which could be approved or rejected at the discretion of the pope …
 
Magocsi, Paul Robert. A History of Ukraine .
Toronto , ON , CAN: University of Toronto Press, 1996. p 165.

Here is a translation of a Primary Source sited in magci's book and also in a books by a Ukrainian Catholic professor, Russel Moroziuk.:

THE VIEWS OF PRINCE KOSTIANTYN  OSTROZ'KYI
 
In June 1595, just after the pro-union Orthodox hierarchs issued their second letter of intent and the constitution which outlined their understanding of church union with Rome , Prince Ostroz'kyi issued the following appeal to the people of Rus':
 
     “In these days, through the evil and cunning work of the ever-malign devil, the   chief   leaders of our faith, tempted by the glories of this world and blinded by their desire for pleasures, our faithless pastors, the metropolitan and the bishops, have forsaken our holy patriarchs and gone over to the Latin side. ... Changing into wolves they secretly agreed among themselves like the damned, like Judas the Betrayer of Christ with the Jews, to tear away the Orthodox Christians of this region without their knowledge and to drag them down to ruin. Because the majority of the population of this land, particularly the Orthodox Christians, consider me to a certain extent to be a defender of Orthodoxy and because I have fear before God and before you, dear brethren, to take any part of the blame on my head, I inform you all together and individually that I have determined to stand firmly, in an alliance with you, against these dangerous enemies of our salvation. What can be more shameless, more unjust, than when those six or seven persons, like robbers, plot secretly and forsake our pastors-patriarchs? Without asking us they entangle us in this betrayal, us the Orthodox, like mute curs. Why obey such persons? When the salt has lost its savor it should be cast out and trampled underfoot. ...”
 
SOURCE: Ivan Wlasowsky, Outline History of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Vol. I (New York and Bound Brook, N.J. 1974), p. 255.

[IreneOlinyk]

Magcosi cites the letter from the prince in translation in his book as does Prof. Moziuk.  So the basice summary as Michael said is that some of the bishops wanted a union but the rest of the bishops, the priests & laity did not.  The Polish Roman Catholic king of course wanted the union.

here is a final quote:

     The basic polemic was as follows. The Roman Catholic king supported the union and the concept that the bishops, as leaders, must decide religious questions, and the people must follow. The Orthodox side countered that religious questions cannot be decided without the approval of the faithful; since the pro-
 
Magocsi, Paul Robert. A History of Ukraine .
Toronto , ON , CAN: University of Toronto Press, 1996. p 168.
 
 
Reformation, Counter Reformation, and the Union of Brest          Page 169
 
union bishops apparently did not have that approval, they had acted illegally and therefore had lost their authority as bishops. With the aid of local printing presses, there developed a spirited polemic on both sides, in which the leading thinkers of the time - Piotr Skarga and Bishop Potii for the Catholic-Uniate side, and Stefan Zyzanii, lurii Rohatynets', and Ivan Vyshens'kyi for the Orthodox side - participated.
 
      Not surprisingly, the king accepted the decisions of the pro-union bishops. Their agreement came to be known as the Union of Brest of 1596. In a sense, the Union of Brest was the equivalent in the cultural sphere of what had been achieved in the political sphere in 1569 with the Union of Lublin. While it is true that the creation of the new Uniate church may not have been what the Jesuits and other advocates of the Counter Reformation in Poland hoped to achieve, in the circumstances, given that outright conversion seemed an impossible goal, Uniatism appeared an acceptable compromise.
 
     With the Polish government on its side, some Uniate hierarchs, especially Bishop Potii of Volodymyr (who for his efforts on behalf of the union was made metropolitan of Kiev in 1599), confiscated property from the now-illegal Orthodox church and increased their pressure on the two remaining Orthodox bishops in the region, Balaban in L'viv and Kopystens'kyi in Przemysl, to join the union. In Volhynia, several dozen prominent
Orthodox nobles did join. The Orthodox cause was left in the hands of the brotherhoods and of magnates and gentry led by Prince Ostroz'kyi. The Orthodox nobles carried on their struggle in the local dietines and the Polish Diet, where they worked in alliance with the other beleaguered religious group, the Protestants. Their efforts were partially successful: in 1607 the Polish Diet granted the Orthodox church legal status once again and agreed not to interfere in the appointment of Orthodox hierarchs. But despite such protection, many Orthodox eparchial sees remained vacant, and in general, Orthodoxy was in a much weakened position vis-a-vis the Roman Catholic and Uniate churches, both of which had the full support of the king and certain other sectors of Polish society.
 
 
     Thus, within less than three decades, the Orthodox cultural revival, which had begun with such promise in the 1578, found itself in a situation in which the institution it defended seemed on the verge of disappearing. The valiant efforts of Rus' townspeople (through the brotherhoods) and magnates (through schools and printing presses) could not stem the overwhelming power of Polish society to attract, whether by means of its sociopolitical and secular cultural life or through the religious accommodation of the new Uniate church. In order to survive, Orthodoxy and the Rus' culture it represented needed some more powerful protector. That protector would be found among the lower echelons of society, which by the early seventeenth century had succeeded in creating an increasingly influential military and political force - the Cossacks.
 
Magocsi, Paul Robert. A History of Ukraine .
Toronto , ON , CAN: University of Toronto Press, 1996. p 169.

I belong to an e-mail discussion group and in May these quotes were sent around by e-mail to everyone involved in the discussion.

[katherine 2001]

I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.

So it would seem that your own communion has somewhat of a disunity in faith. With that considered, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize the EO for being so disunited. I am not saying this to be rude, so please don't get me wrong, I am simply raising a point for you to ponder on.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other.  

God bless.

Yes. I oftentimes wondered about that especially with our belief in the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. What exactly is meant by the declaration that we are ONE Church. I think that both Churches, EO and RC stretch things a bit here, but of course, there is a point to what is essential to the teaching of the Church and to what extent a teaching may be open to some interpretation. Take for example the teaching on whether or not women are to wear headcovering in Church especially during the DL. Well, has it not been taught for 1900 years that this rule must be followed? Then all of a sudden, we see that it is disregarded by many women in the USA.  

really got a thing about head coverings, huh.

for more WARNING, the veil is all she is wearing
http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2008/12/medium_playboymary.jpeg

My bishop says that when he serves in some churches, some of the women will be wearing head coverings but will be barely covered elsewhere (most of them are from Eastern Europe where they must wear head coverings, but wear very short dresses or short skirts with a tank top).  He has said he'd rather have them skip the head covering and be much more modestly dressed.    

[elijahmaria]

My bishop says that when he serves in some churches, some of the women will be wearing head coverings but will be barely covered elsewhere (most of them are from Eastern Europe where they must wear head coverings, but wear very short dresses or short skirts with a tank top).  He has said he'd rather have them skip the head covering and be much more modestly dressed.    

I thought of that very thing last night when I saw what had been posted and the comment that the headcovering was all there was to see. 

What you say is so true.

M.

[elijahmaria]

The title of this thread does not sit well with me.

It's fine.  Says more about Isa and some Orthodox than it says about you or me and our one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

[IreneOlinyk]

Sorry, other than the title Martyr, I can't make out the name of this person in your picture.  Probably, the fault of my computer not you.  Is it someone Orthodox should kmow?

[Aindriú]

PICTURE WAR!