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

That comes at the end of the Patriarch's remarks, for as he put it: "It should be recalled that after our synodal initiative of 1996 with the aim of re-establishing communion with the Orthodox Church of Antioch, while remaining in communion with the Catholic Church, Rome, through the agency of Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger, Achille Silvestrini and Edward Idris Cassidy in a letter dated 11 June 1997, opposed no veto on that initiative, as many thought and said, but asked us to consult the Holy See for any decision in which doctrinal questions were involved."

I do not see him repudiating the Initiative at all, but by all means post a source written by the Patriarch where he openly repudiates the 1996 Melkite Profession of Faith.

The 1996 Initiative remains the official position of the Melkite Catholic Church.

Again, I doubt the translation presented - although not official - is that off base, or is that what you are trying to argue. Are you saying that the person who translated the text in question did not give an accurate translation? That in fact there is no affirmation of papal infallibility or that there really are no references to the Western council of Florence?

In the final anaylsis I suppose we shall simply have to agree to disagree.

That said, I look forward to the release of the official translation, but based upon what I have seen so far I stand by what I said, I will not recommend to anyone that I know a text that presents an Ultramontane position on the papacy, and that is how I view the UGCC text as translated in the original post.


P.S. - I look forward to the release of the Russian Orthodox catechism, and I hope that it gives a solid presentation of the Orthodox faith of the Eastern (Byzantine) Church.

Now as far as the actual topic is concerned, I would love to see some more unofficial translated texts (on the papacy and other issues) from the UGCC catechism.

No? First of all it doesn't exist in any other particular Church. I am somewhat puzzled with this answer and the apparent lack of your need to have catechetical material at the effort in debating a catechetical document of another particular Church that does not even exist in any official form in the language you are attempting to debate it in. And by the way, I have seen the Rosary prayed in a Melkite church before Liturgy.

I don't think anyone has suggested it has been "repudiated". Mentioning it by historical reference is fine, but it is rarely mentioned and certainly there is not unanimous agreement amongst the Melkite clergy and hierarchy about the "Zoghby Initiative". One of our local Antiochian priests, himself a former Melkite, calls it "romantic fiction". His question to me when we discussed this was very pertinent, namely how can one profess a dual communion with a Church (Rome) that one feels has inferior, defective or erroneous theology? The answer is simple. One cannot retain full Eucharistic communion while believing this.

Go for it. A few more comments on a non-existent English translation at this point won't make any difference.

It is more than an historical reference, it is the official position of the Melkite Catholic Holy Synod. If there are priests who dissent from it, that is between them and the Holy Synod. I accept the Synodal Profession of Faith as normative.

There is no official translation, but I am sure that you do not deny that the original post contains a translation (albeit unofficial) of the Ukrainian language text. Or is that translation simply a figment of our imaginations?

Dump all of the papal and curial references and the UGCC catechetical directory would be interesting. But I do not have any interest in reading texts filled with bureaucratic Vaticanese.

Is it possible for the Ukrainian Church to produce a text without constant references to Vatican documents? Why does the UGCC see Roman Curial documents as universal, when they really just reflect the Latin approach to theology?

To be blunt, the UGCC catechetical directory reminds me of the CCEO, which is ninety percent identical to the Latin Church's modern code of canon law.

In this discussion, I have stressed that these translations from the official Ukrainian text are unofficial translations. I solicit input from those who understand Ukrainian to help us understand possible other translations or nuances we might be missing. Still, all of this is provisional until the official English text is released. I have heard that may be expected as early as late next year.

I see no reason to characterize discussions on the Ukrainian text as "futile" or "premature at best". This is very much like what happened when the original Catechism of the Catholic Church was released in French in December of 1992. The English translation did not appear until much later. There was much discussion about it from those who understood French in the Catholic press. One such example can be cited here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/CCHISM.HTM

For example, the link above describes how the French text of the Catechism affected the English-speaking Catholic Church:


All this many months before the Catechism of the Catholic Church was translated into English.

So, I'm at a loss as to why discussions of this new Ukrainian Catholic Catechism should await the official English translation. I think that if we admit the translations we are obtaining are tentative and unofficial, subject to input from others here who know the language, respectful discussions should continue.

I also would be interested in hearing some commentary from Forum members who understand Ukrainian about parts of the new UGCC Catechism that are not so controversial. I am sure that there are many good sections of the new Catechism that members (both Catholic and Orthodox) will find encouraging and perhaps inspiring.

To me this raises and interesting point.

For our ideal "Byzantine Rite" catechism, what would the sources be? Some might say that it should focus mostly on the "Byzantine" liturgy, as well as the great Fathers cited in tradition - patristics, the Cappadocians, Iconoclasm, essence/energies, among others - with a fair amount of reference to what that means in our daily lives. Excluded would be much reference to the medieval west, counter-reformation, the Latin Catholic fight against some of the political trends of the "enlightenment",etc.

I think this makes a lot of sense. But if we were to do this, what would be wrong with, say, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Way, or Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev's English catechism (out of print but available on his website), which I think are both stellar books. This is particularly the case since neither book really talks about differences with the Pope or Western theology that much, and the issue could be addressed by a short pamphlet accompanying them.

(and I won't even touch the idea that "focus on catechisms and cathecesis as a major parish focus is itself a Westernization which didn't really exist before the Reformation", since while it has some valid implications, I don't think it would be pastorally correct to go too far with it).

SK

Maximos the Confessor, John of Damascus and Nicholas Kabasilas are all good places to start, if one is looking for sources of authentic Eastern Christian catechisms--recognizing, of course, that the very concept of a "catechism" is a latinization, and an innovation dating back no earlier than the Counter-Reformation.

For us, Liturgy should be the principal source of catechesis, and catechesis should be understood principally as mystagogy, or initiation into the Holy Mysteries. To the extent that padeia (Christian education) is required, this should be explicitly linked to the Liturgy, focusing on the Mysteries, the liturgical calendar and festal cycles, and the liturgical texts themselves.

Interestingly, in my own catechesis, I was provided exclusively with Orthodox texts, the God With Us series not yet having been issued. I thought that did a very good job.

For me, the ultimate measure of any Greek Catholic catechism is whether I could use it in an Orthodox religious education class without having to change anything.

IT is very interesting to note, that there are Ukrainians, I can only speak of the Detroit Metro Area, who don't want to be Orthodox ie Russian Orthodox or Latin Rite. They seem to want to go their own direction. A third way if you will. In honesty I don't know how big this group is. I've heard more than several people in my old church talk about it.

So perhaps that third way is reflected in the Catechism?

I think I am part of this "third way". I tried labeling myself as an "Orthodox in communion with Rome" but discovered that didn't really fit me.

If you have the opportunity to speak with Archimandrite Robert Taft, do tell him about this marvelous "third way". Before you do, ask someone to make a video of it, then e-mail it to me. I need a good laugh.

I wonder if Fr. Taft has spoken about the new UGCC Catechism? Does anyone here have contact with him to inquire his thoughts?