You can read those articles? I'm impressed, Romanian not being a commonly spoken language in the west. I don't know much of the situation in western Romania, but I do know that in the north east Greek Catholics are held in suspicion by both the Latin rite Catholics and the Orthodox. Any idea if the situation is different towards Hungary? Much as I wish that the Greek catholics were still Orthodox (especially given the political nature of their origins) I'm glad to see that my church has returned their property.Deacon Lance said:
I can read and understand Spanish (much more than my couple of terms of school Spanish should allow me), and that's down to my Romanian. I also don't have any great difficulty understanding Italian, which is far closer to Romanian than Spanish. Romanians can generally understand Italian (and to a lesser extent Spanish) pretty easily but, as you have noted the reverse is not true, and it's not just limited to Mexicans. I think it has something to do with the grammar (most Romance languages are very simplified compared to Latin, Romanian isn't) combined with the Slavonic and Dacian vocabulary, which are often commonly used but frequently have a less used Latin derived synonym.Mexican said:
I now live six months of the year or so in Romania, so this matter comes close to my new home. There is nothing to respect about the U-word . It was just a ploy of the Vatican to weaken the progressing hold of the Orthodox faith in Transylvania and spread papism to other parts of Eastern Europe. Since the leaders of the state owe fealty to the Church, they had a responsibility to take buildings from these heretics and give them over to the use of the Orthodox Church. Why defend heretics in calling for the return of these properties?Mexican said:
Regarding these buildings - It should be the people themselves who should decide by vote on what they want to be. The property should then go to the majority vote and provisions should be made for the minority vote. This is what the 'Quadripartite Ageement' signed by the ROC, UOC, UGCC, & the RCC provided. Hadn the UGCC & the RCC abided and honored they agreement they signed you wouldn't be having the problems you are having now in Ukraine and elsewhere including Romania.CRCulver said:
It is rather ironic how the Vatican's favorites in the region, Poland and Austria, were the ones which prevented Western Ukraine from being united to Ukraine. The UGCC doesn't accept the forced union with the Orthodox by the Soviets, but they do accept the forced union of the territory to the Ukraine, also done by the Soviets. :Mexican said:
: : : I wasn't aware the issue was dormant:Schultz said::
^
One "eye roll" for every calendar year this post has lain dormant.
Very well put.CRCulver said:
Unfortunately, not exactly true.Chtets Ioann said:
I thought that did happen in Romania and that the majority of the parishioners in most of the parishes in Transylvania voted to remain Orthodox? Please correct me if I am wrong.Orthodoc said:
Sort of. They refer to the properties as "stolen," and insist that is only because of their "magnimity" and "pursuit of peace" that they will setlle for only the properties to meet their needs, not addressing the question of what happens if and when their needs grow. Of course, what happens if their needs deminish isn't addressed: not a theoretical issue, to judge by the history of St. Alexis Toth. Recently the bishops in Italy told the head of the "Romanian Church united with Rome-Greek Catholic" to not send any married priests to Italy for his flock there (over half a million). Let's see if the rest of the Romanians wise up and come home to Mother Church.Jake said:
That's a pretty simplistic answer. i disagree with the parts in bold for the most part. There was a trend in twhat we call "the old country" already before the immigrants from Galicia and Transcarpathia came to the USA.bergschlawiner said:
There were some pro-Russian, pro-Orthodox movements among the Rusyns and Ukrainians but they were never a majority and even with this in America not a single Greek Catholic mission or parish approached the Orthodox until the American Latin bishops started hasseling the married priests like St. Alexis Toth (a widower). The majority were content to be Greek Catholic until abused. In Europe things were different. The Communists outlawed the Greek Catholic Church and handed the churches over to the Orthodox. When Communism fell the vast majority in Ukraine and Slovakia who were either underground or going to their old parishes now held by the Orthodox declared themselves Greek Catholic openly again. It would seem only a minority did so in Romania.Orest said:
The Greek Catholics resurfaced in 1968 in Slovakia during the Prague Spring. 292 Parishes were to vote but after 205 voted Greek Catholic and 35 voted Orthodox the voting was stopped and the remaining 52 were given to the Orthodox. Most of the buildings were not retuned until the early 90s. The Eparchy of Presov was registered but persecution and harassment continued until the fall of the Iron Curtain.ialmisry said:
This is an interesting point as there are a number of similarities with Greek/Constantinopolitan practice shared by the Romanians and the Rusyns which distinguish the practices and 'rules' set out in their Sluzhebniks/Liturgikons etc... from those of what we used to call the 'High' Russians when I was growing up. When the first Greek Catholics began to return to Orthodoxy at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th centuries, it was assumed that those practices were 'Latin' in that they were distinct from those of the Russian Church. Hence they were vigorously purged despite the fact that many of them were as properly Orthodox as were those of the Russians. Of course I am not defending the true Latinizations imposed by the Synod of Zamost but it does seem that in the early years of the return to Orthodox practice there was a conscious effort to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' as they say!augustin717 said:
Could you please provide an explanation or clearer description of who it is that you are referring to here?podkarpatska said:
While a derivative term once commonly used to describe individual Eastern Catholics and parish communities in union with Rome has become a pejorative over the years, the term 'Unia' itself has a distinct meaning which is not an insult 'per se'. I would direct the reader (and the mods) to this excerpt from the Byzantine Catholic Church in America (http://www.byzcath.org/ ..an unofficial source run by American Byzantine Catholics) and its article explaining the relationship between the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics from their point of view: " During the Counter-Reformation, certain groups of Orthodox Christians entered into full communion with Rome for a variety of reasons - both political and religious - and gradually became incorporated into a rather triumphalist, Counter-Reformation Roman Catholic Church. The policies in creating these "unions" or "Unia" was one of proselytism, and, according to the 1994 Balamand Statement, "one in which the Catholic Church developed the theological vision in which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted." Members of the Orthodox Churches who established full communion with Rome, today known as "Byzantine Catholics" and "Greek Catholics" (or, simply, "Eastern Catholics"), were treated extremely poorly by Rome and were wrongly forced to replace much of their authentic Byzantine patrimony with Roman Catholic practices and theological understandings. While these 'latinizations' were only a byproduct of communion with Rome, they only provided abundant evidence of the flaws in the Catholic policies of that era, which themselves created much bitterness among Eastern Orthodox Christians, and helped to put a damper on Catholic/Orthodox relations for centuries. " http://www.byzcath.org/Faith-and-Worship/East-West-Dialogue-Page1.htmserb1389 said:
