THE UNION OF BREST: a Church between East and West

Johan Meijer

In October 1596, in Brest Litovsk, at that time a city within the Polish- Lithuanian kingdom now in Belarus, the Union of the Ruthenian Orthodox Church with the Church of Rome was solemnly promulgated. In 1946 Stalin forced this Church to give up this Union and to join the Russian Orthodox patriarchate of Moscow. Until the middle of 1989 the major part of this Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine, as it was called, continued to live an underground existence, and at the end of that year they emerged from the catacombs and many priests and faithful declared themselves independent again from the Russian orthodox church and the Union revived. Since then the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is one of the most important religious bodies in Ukraine and a great asset to the stabil- ity of the political situation of Ukrainian society, but quarrels about church buildings and other property have poisoned the atmosphere between these Greek Catholics and Russian Orthodox and even between the Vatican and the Moscow patriarchate. Since the Vatican Council (1962-1965) a good relation had slowly developed between this patriarchate and the Catholic Church, especially the Vatican Secretariat for Church Unity, relations in which political implications should not be underestimated. In face of the communist sup- pression of the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine (and elsewhere) at that period, Rome always had taken an ambiguous attitude. At one hand there was the solidarity with the suffering brothers and sisters in the faith, but on the other hand it was considered rather convenient that they could not be a disturbing element in the ecumenical game. This situation has come to an end since the official revival of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. This is one of the ambiguities which confuse an honest approach of the implications of the Union of Brest in the past and in the present. In that respect it is of great ecumenical importance to deal with both the positive and negative feelings which this event rouses in the hearts of those involved. It is e.g. ununderstandable that the patriarchate of Moscow never openly expressed its regret of the - political! - annexation of the Greek Catholic Church in 1946. Russian Orthodox hierarchs who in pri- vate conversations admitted that they felt uneasy with it , kept quiet in public. This irritates rightly so the Greek Catholic counterparts as a lack of respect for human rights. So my confrere in the Redemptorist Order, the old Metropolitan Wolodymyr Sterniuk told me in 1990: "If Moscow would say only once 'I am sorry', that would be enough, and we would " embrace each other!" 223 ' The Russian Orthodox Church is afraid that Rome will expand its power through the Greek Catholic Church, and that might be so. But this fear will not grow less by protests and cursing, but only by a dialogue in truth and love, as should have been learned since Vatican II. The Russian Orthodox Church should expand its pastoral activity and missionary zeal. In stead of protesting so fiercefully against the Roman Church they should join forces with it and put its energy together in a common effort against the destructive influence of the many sects in today Russia. Certainly it is true that the 'uniates' do not always act with much flexibility either. But no church is exempt of having rash and rude mem- bers. However there is much more contact and relationship growing than one would suspect. Although the openness at the Greek Catholic side is at the moment greater than with their orthodox partners.

A Union with Rome

Why the Ruthenian Church (Ukrainian is a modern term) took by majority the decision to join the Roman Church? There are a number of reasons. The Polish-Lithuanian kingdom at the end of the 16th century included the territory of what is called now Belarus and Ukraine (without Crimea). The slavic population, for which we use the name Ruthenians, ecclesiastically belonged to the metropolis of Kiev. This Kievan Church recognized the primacy of the Ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople, today Istanbul. The situation of the Church was abominable. Since the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 the Ecumenical patriarchate had lost much of its influence within the Orthodox world and could not cope with the pastoral problems of these Slavic lands. Some of the bishops had great difficulty with the activities of the orthodox lay brotherhoods which became too independent in their eyes. There was also a strong psychologi- cal pressure from the side of the Polish Catholic environment to polonize (=latinize) the Ruthenian faithful. The conviction was still upheld of the superiority of the Latin tradition above the Eastern! And then the protes- tant Reformation slowly got hold of the landowners and small nobility, which meant a threat to these poor Ruthenian peasants. To free themselves from these pressing circumstances the majority of the Orthodox bishops in these lands decided to join the mighty Church of Rome which at that moment lived through a period of renewal after the Reformation. Such a vigorous renewal appealed to these bishops. Adherence to the Roman Church could also have the advantage that their role would be stronger within the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom and they might become members of the parliament. Shortly before Christmas 1595 two Ruthenian bishops, Potyj and Terleckyj came to Rome with 33 conditions, such as the integral preser-