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

No, I'm Eastern Catholic. The Orthodox not in communion with Rome often accuse us of being non apostolic. Given that we don't seem to have a Patriarch they may be right. That is, if we deny Pope Benedict's authority.

If the Pope is not the "Patriarch of the West" anymore, then who is the Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church?

According to you, they are in a lot of trouble.

What does it matter if the head of your church is called a Patriarch or a Metropolitan?

Daniel, go read a good book on the ecclesiology of the early Church ... Friendly advice.

By the way, who are these awful Orthodox people with whom you hang out, and why have I never met a single one who ever says anything remotely like what you attribute to them. Not that I am suggesting you are inventing your own "Metta-Narrative", but one could get that impression.

Dear Carson,

First, my Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church does have a Patriarch. Second, it is not so much the name of the title but that authority that is given that matters. Look at the Church in question in the OP, they do not, in name, have a Patriarch, but for all intensive purposes and in reality, that is what they have. Third, what does the title that this particular Pope choose have anything to do with us Eastern Catholic Churches? We each have our own head that is communion with the Pope of Rome. If this was not the case, then why would I need to write an official letter to the Bishop of the Eparchy of Newton that then needs to be approved by both he and the Bishop of my Roman Catholic Diocese so that I can be canonically Melkite? You know that saying, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"? That is applicable in the situation some Eatern Catholic Churches are in. Even if Rome does not recognize that they have a Patriarch, that does not mean that he is not a Patriarch.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

...

Manuel, I'm not sure of the point you are making. I'm glad that the Melkites have a Patriarch and the Pope. We do not have a Patriarch except for the Pope.

CDL

Dear brothers in Christ.

I think we have exhausted or strayed from the thread and it is turning uncharitable. Like many RC and Protestants convert to Eastern Christianity Carson is enthusiastic about his faith. We cradle Eastern Christians have lived our Faith for decades and most of the posters are very knowledgeable about ecclesiastical matters; however we still make erroneous or unbacked statements occasionally. So we should be charitable with one who wishes to participate in the forum but is not as knowledgable. That is how we learn.

Rome may have shed the "Patriarch" name but in fact, Rome considers the Pope to be a "super-Patriarch" with his canonical territory being universal except for small pockets of ethnic territories. None of the arguments presented here have changed this perception one bit. As I said earlier, "it is what it is."

I think we all can agree that changes are desirable...not just desirable but necessary for Christian unity. "And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave." (Mt 20:27)

Christ is amongst us!
Fr Deacon Paul

He is and ever shall be!

Thanks for the reminder, Fr. Deacon Paul.

I don't think we've exhausted the topic of the new Catechism. I have a few more paragraphs that I should get translations of shortly (a friend in Ukraine is working on them) and should be posting them soon. I also encourage other members here who understand Ukrainian to post additional translations of the text or other comments.

Perhaps we could focus more on the specific issues involved (translation, theological interpretation, relation to other Church documents, any importance for East-West dialogue, etc.)? I'm sure I'm overlooking some other possible areas for this thread but narrowing the focus might help keep the discussion on track.

David, my brother,

Well-said!

Gentlemen,

I have no desire to lock this thread as I think it contains interesting fodder for discussion, albeit hampered by the fact that no official English translation is, as yet, available - nor will one be for a time yet. However, I just edited uncharitable characterizations aimed from opposite directions and, if it becomes necessary to do so again, then I'll reconsider my reluctance to lock the thread.

The topic of the thread is the New UGCC Catechism. It focused initially on the issue of whether the catechism explicitly reaffirmed papal roles in ways that might differ from how those might be understood or expressed by some Eastern Catholics. (I don't think that anyone here, regardless of their personal viewpoint on how those roles should be seen, would deny that EC/OC views on the matter span a wide spectrum.) David has, graciously and in a spirit of willingness to avoid meaningless polemics, suggested what he's termed a narrower focus but has described in terms of avenues of further discussion that really broaden the subject - moving away, at least pending clarification of nuances of language, etc, from infallibility as the overriding point of interest. I strongly suggest that everyone follow through on his suggestion until we can revisit it from a more fully-informed perspective.

In short, I've no doubt of David's honorable intentions in opening the thread (and anyone who has posted here for any period of years knows David way too well to think differently). So, I have to imagine that the divergent paths the thread is taking and the less than charitable tenor that has entered into it are indicative of our own frailties and passions. Get over them, please!

Anyone wishing to debate whether or not the extent to which the authority exercised by primatial hierarchs of the EC/OC Churches is or is not ceded to "the Pope as patriarch" in instances where the particular Church is not of patriarchal status, have at it - but in another thread!

Many years,

Neil

Fair 'nuff. Thanks for the focus.

If we were to go for a tit for tat of latinizations, no Eastern Catholic church is immune, Melkites included. As Dr. Roman has correctly stated, the "Zoghby Initiative" is largely dead and has not been even mentioned publically by anyone I know of in the Melkite hierarchy for years. I personally know Melkite clergy who either ignore or are opposed to it, and know priests of a certain Basilian order within the Melkite Church who harbor views surprisingly close to some of our UGCC Basilians about some of these things.

But why stop with Eastern Catholics - Protoprebyter Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory had a laundry list of liturgical and spiritual aspects of what he called "westernizations" that had crept into many Orthodox parishes and were well established when he made those observations.

In the Western cultural millieu that we find ourselves as a very small minority, there is, has been, and will be constant pressure on Eastern Christianity precisely because of our minority. This certainly does not mean to capitulate, but to acknowledge this as fact and triage the most important aspects to protect.

But to address the opening thread, it seems quite futile to make speculations of language and translation when there actually is no official English translation yet. We will have to see what the Committee comes up with, and Patriarch +Sviatoslav being fluent in English has assured us he will read every word carefully before proposing its approval by the Synod. In the larger historical context of Kyivan Christianity as manifested in the UGCC, the idea of dual communion would necessarily mean giving respect to the "other" we are in communion with - Rome. Like the esteemed Dr. Roman, so far I like what I see.

I remain disappointed with the new UGCC catechism, and I will not use it myself, nor will I recommend it to my friends, because it is basically a Roman (not an Eastern) document. I had concerns about it years ago when I read some of the pre-release comments of its authors (see the document [web.archive.org] referenced by DTBrown earlier in this thread, see also my post #369318), because what they said indicated to me that they had a more or less medieval Roman ecclesiology. Now, having seen the paragraph on the papacy translated into English (see the original post in this thread) it is clear to me that the UGCC holds a Latinized position on the nature of authority in the Church, and that is a lamentable thing, because it is a lost opportunity for a large Eastern Catholic Church to reassert its a real Orthodox position on primacy and synodality.

Finally, as far as the so-called Zoghby Initiative is concerned, as I pointed out in an earlier post, it has not be rescinded by either the Melkite Patriarch or the Melkite Catholic Holy Synod, which is why - in spite of Rome's disapproval - it remains the official position of the Melkite Catholic Church. This fact was confirmed in 2002 when the Melkite Catholic Patriarch spoke about the Initiative and its enduring position in the Melkite Catholic Church's ecumenical outreach in a speech he delivered in Connecticut (see the speech entitlted "Unia to Koinonia"). I have not seen anything published since then by the Patriarch in which he repudiates what he said in that speech, but if someone has some evidence to show that the Patriarch has in the intervening years repudiated the Initiative I would ask that he post it here.

Here is a speech given by Patriarch Gregory in Rome last October,

Ecclesiology and Ecumenism

An interesting quote to support Apotheoun position that the Melkite Patriarch still holds to the Zoghby Initiative

I cannot believe that the unofficial translation supplied in the original post is that far off, and - of course - the references in the UGCC catechism to Florence and other Western councils on the papacy makes it hard to believe that a real Eastern eccesiological position will be affirmed in it when the official English translation is released. After all, it will simply be a translation of the Ukrainian language text and not a rewrite of it. It is sad that the UGCC chose to promote in its catechism a basically 19th century Ultramontane view of the papacy, but that appears to be what has happened. Moreover, the tendency of the UGCC to quote Roman Curial documents as somehow "universal" while its own synodal decisions are merely local (i.e., something it also did in its catechetical directory issued in the late 1990s) reveals the degree of Latinization still affecting the Ukrainian Catholic Church. I hope someday that the UGCC will free itself from the shackles of Roman supremacy, but clearly it has not been able to do that in its new catechism.

To be honest, all I wanted was a good Eastern / Byzantine catechism, but alas based upon the translated text of the section of the Ukrianian catechism on the papacy that was not what the UGCC decided to publish, and so I suppose I shall have to wait for the Russian Orthodox Church to publish the catechism it is presently working on in order for my wish to be fulfilled.

I don't specifically see an affirmation of the "Zoghby Initiative" as a living document or initiative. Nor does this change the fact that not all of the hierarchy and clergy agree with this position. What has been said here has been said by other Eastern Catholic hierarchs as long ago as Patriarchs +Josyp and +Maximos of blessed memory.



It is premature at best to pick individual portions based on speculation of a yet unapproved translation, and in fact any such discussion serves no purpose since there is no approved text to debate. What the UGCC did already decide to publish, with approved English translation, is that included in the Catechetical Directory approved by the Synod in 2000:
Can you show me an actual catechetical document approved by the entirety of the Melkite or any other Greek Catholic synod with language like this?

I have read the UGCC catechetical directory and it has many Eastern things about it, but it also HEAVILY quotes Papal and Roman Curial documents. Why does it do that? It doesn't need to, but it does reveal the Latinization of the UGCC. Again, Rome is not the "universal" Church, while all other sui juris Churches are merely particular or local Churches. The document I linked to in an earlier post that distinguishes between the UGCC and the universal Church reveals a medieval Roman ecclesiology, and does not reflect the actual nature of the Church, which in each local instantiation is the full realization of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Postscript: I do not need a "catechetical" document to prove that the Melkite Church teaches theosis, because it is simply part of our tradition to do so. That said, unlike the Ukrainians you will not find us encouraging Latin devotions (e.g., the Sacred Heart), because those devotional practices do not conform to our own spiritual patrimony.