www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West New UGCC Catechism Reaffirms Papal Infallibility?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Just my two cents' worth on the UGCC catechism raised and quoted by Brother Dave.

The presentation on the papacy truly is "nuanced" since not all of what Florence said on the papacy is contained in the UGCC.

Another poster here accurately noted that there are "ultramontanist" Ukrainian Catholics for whom this catechism will fall short of what they would have liked to see on the score of the papacy. The UGCC is, in a sense, very much like the Anglican church in that there are "high" and "low" views on the papacy and other Western-originating dogmas. This catechism, very much like the Book of Common Prayer, is trying to be an umbrella covering both perspectives and everything in between.

By way of comparison between the UGCC and the Melkites, I don't think it is fair to say that the UGCC is more "Latinized" based on what its catechism says about the papacy and other dogmas.

It is the case that the Melkites tend to be much more ambiguous in terms of defining what they believe and we shouldn't expect anything similar to the UGCC catechism emanating from the Melkite Church any time soon, if ever. The Zoghby initiative, truth be told, came from Zoghby. It does not reflect the official position of the Melkite Patriarchate and it was rejected by Rome. The Orthodox Church would also take issue with the position that one can be fully "Orthodox" and fully "in communion with Rome" since Rome is outside Orthodoxy.

Our Brother Todd's assertion that one can be a member of an Eastern Catholic Church and, at the same time, regard the papal dogmas as being "erroneous" is simply incorrect. Brother Todd has, by this confession, already placed himself spiritually within the Communion of Orthodoxy - not that there's anything wrong with that. One cannot be an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox in communion with Rome and regard the papal dogmas (however we, as Eastern Catholics, wish to recast them within our own spiritual ethos)as being erroneous. That position breaks our communion with Rome, as per Rome's teaching itself.

The UGCC Catechism is an expression of an Eastern Catholic Particular Church, the largest there is, with a colourful past with respect to the "East-West" theological continuum. At the same time, to think that the Eastern Congregation had no input or control over the final product would be wrong. Yet, it is the catechism approved by our Patriarch and his Patriarchal Synod. So there we have it.

Given the history of the UGCC with its truly "Latinized" sections, it is a wonder such a catechism made it to the light of day to begin with. This catechism truly is nuanced, but I have yet to read it.

I intend to study it closely in Ukrainian before writing my own review of it in conjunction with our Brother Dave.

But there is no doubt that the Latinizing party in our Church will doubtless ignore this catechism while the Easternizing party will regard it as being too Latin.

All I know is that I wouldn't want to be in our Patriarch's shoes . . .

Alex

Thank you BB. I will be looking at those Flloque links later on. For what it's worth, I'd like to weigh in on this discussion - but in a more general way, an experiential way as a cradle UGC Just be forewarned; it's likely this will be a rant.
Admittedly, I do not have the historical and theological chops to debate, let alone presently comprehend, many of the arcane and nuanced points undergirding this debate on the possible meaning and intent of the New UGCC Catechism. However, I do simply want to say that I find it an egregious affront to my faith as a Catholic to come across fellow eastern Catholics taking jabs at the Pope both in terms of infallibility and as, seemingly, THE head of our Church. And the Mod is only upset because someone called the Metropolitan simply "Hilarion?"

Am sure some of you, maybe most will find my declaration simply meaningless sugared air, but here tis because I truly feel it is a black and white issue: you're either Catholic and you accept the Pope as the Vicar of Christ - or you're not. Moreover, stop seeming to act as if you have the superior handle on what a proper orthodox and catholic spirituality "should" mean to an individual; how anything latin flocked is lacking for true spiritual nourishment in an Eastern Rite perspective.

In my own parish I've had more than a whiff of a distressing current of a holier than thou stance fueling the undoing and estimation of Latin ways and means on "our" Church and in general. And it goes like this in effect: "lazy Latins with their feckless subservience to making things all too brief and way too liberal; with all their liturgical changes and attention to the wrong detail...we've got to teach them how it should be done." Tit for tat thinking, huh? You're mimicking the same posture you decry was inflicted on our Church by some in the Latin Hierarchy, And of course the Latins will listen because everyone loves to have someone tell them what they are doing wrong. And look at us! Clean our own house: you have all these Eastern Rite Churches who don't necessarily get along with one another simply on ethnic lines. let alone the Catholic-Orthodox divide.

On a experiential/spiritual level I find this latin bashing very polarizing. I've never felt so self-consciously "apart from" going into a Roman Catholic Church thanks to the unfortunate politicized aspect of trying to restore the Eastern Rite Church to it's tradition. And this is good how? And yes, I know, certain Latin Catholic sensibilities denied and even destroyed our Churches back in Western Ukraine. Get over it, move on, and work towards unity. Am also surprised at downright xenophobic swipes at different ethnic groups by individuals that should be held to a higher standard. And yes, the Latin Rite is very high profile and dominating- most Catholics are Roman Catholic, aren't they? They don't know we exist? Well, then make an active effort to house those two lungs together instead of pointing fingers and being so insular in your own thinking.
Their Mass is woefully too short? Not sure why folks think the length of the Liturgy is necessarily more spiritually nourishing - or better. More and more I'm thinking it might be nice to think of spending an hour in Divine Liturgy and the other one or two in actually following the Gospel and helping your neighbor; doing charitable work.

Apologies if I've got up anyone's nose and strayed from topic, but this has been building up inside of me.

Uh, can't we all just get along?

So would I.

The section on the papacy seems to be covered in paragraphs 290-293. A rough translation of paragraph 291 has already been given. Perhaps someone who has a copy of the Catechism and who can translate from Ukrainian could give us paragraph 293, which seems to give a direct quote from the Council of Florence?

It appears that Purgatory is discussed and Florence again cited in paragraph 250. But, without understanding Ukrainian, it is impossible to know how it is explained. Or, if the concept of Indulgences is mentioned.

Humanae Vitae is also cited in paragraphs 871, 875 and 893. Again, translation of these paragraphs (and possible surrounding context) would be necessary to be able to understand what is being said.

Looking forward to your review, Brother Alex!

Again, I think it important to realize that these issues relating to differences between our Churches is a very small part of this Catechism. The publication of Christ our Pascha is a monumental achievement by the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Thessalonius,

Yes, that is the extent of my upset - why? Because that offends the respect that this forum extends to hierarchs and clergy of the Apostolic Church. A discussion or debate as to the extent that Eastern Catholics can, do, should, accord full agreement to the concepts of papal infallibility and/or supremacy does not.

Were posters 'taking jabs' at such - in the sense of mocking, deriding, or otherwise posting in a derisive manner - you'd have seen postings from me warning against such and/or indications that posts had been edited by me to delete such. I've had to do neither - nor am I aware that any of the Administrators or my fellow Moderators have had to do so.

This thread has continued in a very civil and charitable manner, posted to by both Catholics (Ukrainian, Melkite, Ruthenian, and Latin) and Orthodox members. The posters have expressed diverse opinions on the nuances of the textual material, tempered regularly by the caveat that definitive commentary must await either publication of an English edition or an informed translation of the Ukrainian text.

The thread itself exists because this forum both permits and encourages diversity of opinion. Which is why you are free to offer the opinions that you have.

Additionally, although the topic presented is most germane to those among us of the UGCC, we have long acknowledged that much of what transpires in any of our Churches, Catholic or Orthodox, potentially has implications for the broader Eastern Christian community.

As well, we recognize and trust that faithful of the various Eastern Christian Churches (and often of the Latin and Protestant Churches, witness those of each who post here) have a genuine concern for their brethren that crosses ecclesial bounds and makes their input, their thoughts, their opinions, interesting and informative. On the other hand, contrary to what your post suggests at one point, we do not encourage threads analyzing or critiquing the Latin Church's liturgical forms or praxis, as it is not consonant with the purpose of this site.

Getting back to the topic at hand, it has been noted by several that their concerns have origins in the latinization that is widely acknowledged to exist in some parts of the UGCC, sometimes imposed from without, sometimes promoted from within, oftimes an artifact of the brutal history that has afflicted your Church and its accomodation of what was required of it to survive. For many, it was hoped that the long-awaited catechism would reflect the increasing efforts made by the UGCC to leave that phase of its existence behind. Now, they are wondering if that will not be the case.

The 'vetting' by minutantes of the Oriental Congregation is not unexpected; what would be nice to know - and we likely never will - is what changes were made in that venue versus what was written to the tabula rasa by the UGCC's theologians.

Our history, even our recent history, - that of all of we Eastern and Oriental Catholics - is replete with the fingerprints of the Congregation. Thus, we have: the Eastern Code of Canon Law, replete with textual mirrors of the Latin Code; the Particular Law of the Ruthenian Metropolia retaining a vestige of the nearly century-old prohibition against ordaining married men to the presbyterate - generously qualified to allow it to ordain such men, with the permission of Rome; and, perhaps, now a Ukrainian GC Catechism that goes a step, or more, beyond where it had to go vis-a-vis the role of the papacy.

Just a final note, as you are a member of the UGCC, I'd differ with your statement that the Pope is 'THE head of our Church': the Pope is the head of the Catholic Communion; the head of the UGCC is His Beatitude (Major-Archbishop or Patriarch, whichever you choose) Sviatoslav. If that is not the case, then the entire concept of the terminology 'Church sui iuris' is of even less value than we Eastern and Oriental Catholics would like to believe.

Many years,

Neil

Good points, Neil! That would be fascinating to find out if there were any changes or not.

An earlier catechetical summary (but not on the scale of the current catechism) can be read online in pdf format here. [stjosaphateparchy.org] It particularly focuses on the Eastern spiritual heritage in the second part. This website [stjosaphateparchy.org] describes this Catechetical Directory (the aforementioned pdf file) as "the official catechetical document approved by the Synod." It has since been superseded by the new Catechism.

Exactly. And why should anyone? It is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, you know...

Alexis

This morning I was given this rough translation of paragraph 293 from the Catechism:

"Christ entrusts the ministry of Church universality to the apostle
Peter: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when
you have returned, strengthen your brothers.” (Lk. 22:32). The
Bishop of Rome – a bearer of Peter’s ministry – convenes Ecumenical
Councils, approves of their decisions, ascertains and expresses the
infallible doctrines of the Church, resolves difficulties that arise
in the life of local Churches. The ministry of the Roman Hierarch
testifies of “the most ancient apostolic times"247. His ministry is to
“strengthen the brothers” in common faith (cf. Lk. 22:31-42), be a
“rock” (cf. Mt. 16:18) and a “shepherd” (cf. Jn. 21:15-18). “It is to
him (Roman Hierarch), in St. Peter, that Jesus Christ passed on the
whole authority to tend, manage and take care of the whole Church, as
it is established at the Ecumenical Councils and in the sacred
canons”248.

247 - See Dmytro Tuptalo, Lives of Saints. October 11. Remembering the
7th Ecumenical Council.
248 - Council of Florence, Oros."

The quotation from Florence is from the papal decree Laetentur Coeli (SESSION 6 6 July 1439), which can be read in whole here. [dailycatholic.org]

If others want to comment with possible improvements in translation, please feel free to do so.

Professor Alex,

It is so good to see you once again. I was away for about 18 months but was curious to make contact with you again. I shall remain silent on this issue for a time but am learning much from you once again.

Carson Daniel Lauffer

Eastern Catholics should not be disturbed by this statement, for it is fact; yes, we are a "sui juris" Church, and it is in ommunion with the Pope of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. Acceptance of the Roman shepherd is a central part of our Union agreements. It is what it is.

Is it subject to change? Except for minor nuances, probably not. The only driver for change is to entice the Orthodox Churches into discussion. Why would the Roman Church surrender one of their major negotiating points with no flexibility from the East?

We have to get much deeper into give and take before its time for a true Eucumenical Council to make changes in this standing principle.

We can dream of change, but without accepting action from the Holy Spirit there should be no expectations of moderate changes.

The role of the Eastern Catholic Churches is to live up to our commitment, being true to the Union but also true to practically all other Eastern traditions and rites. It should also expect the Roman Church to faithfully follow Canon Law.

The role of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is to unify through and Eastern Eucumenical Council (with non-voting representation from ALL the "sui iuris" Churches in the Roman union) to solidify WHO will speak for the Eastern Church and to set the parameters for potential union with the Western Churches.

The Roman Church role...it already modified its position greatly at Vatican II Council; it has already appointed its negotiator. So it must continue to make contact with the major Patriarchates and hope that they can come to some negotiating consensus. It must be willing to put everything on the table when the time comes for a true Ecumenical Council.

This is only my opinion. Until there are major moves by the Orthodox Churches I will stand by my committment to the Catholic Church which I signed after I was ordained, and I will continue to teach my brother Byzantine Catholic members to do the same.

Father Deacon Paul
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh (Byzantine Catholic)

Father Deacon Paul,

I see no realistic option unless we wish to break our word. We can argue until we are blue in face that some other arrangement ought to be made. It will do no good. That's the deal we struck and we ought to be adult enough to stick to it. We aren't Protestants or at least aren't supposed to be.

Metta Physical

So Eastern Catholics who understand the role of Bishop of Rome differently than the Latin Church are protestants? So does that make the Melkite Patriarch a protestant, since he openly proclaims that his Church is an Orthodox Church with the big or little plus of being in communion with Rome?

This is a tightrope act that I think is frought with difficulty. For instance, if one affirms the idea that the post-schism Roman councils are ecumenically binding then there is very little room for "Eastern traditions."
I would rather stick with the definition of an ecumenical council that was given at a council that none dispute is an ecumenical council, Nicea II:


Should our commitment be to this definition, which seemingly precludes the idea that we are "bound" to any definitions not given by a council that does not fit this criteria, or should it be to that which developed later in one particular church that we happen to be in communion with?
I understand what your concerns are, and I can certainly appreciate them. I don't think that, historically speaking, it is that cut and dry, but I could be wrong.

When you say "practically all" traditions and rites, which would you say should be discarded?

Nelson,

Have you read what Orthodox Christians say about those who identify themselves as "Orthodox in Communion with Rome"?

Read this:


Source: http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html