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

The references (i.e., to Vatican I and Vatican II) seem problematic in themselves, but I recognize the fact that the translation provided in the original post is unofficial.

Finally, I am also concerned by the fact that the new UGCC catechism had to go through the Roman Curia before being published (see DTBrown's post #369309).

Why does Rome need to sign off on a self-governing Church's catechism?

It is sad that Rome apparently feels the need to micromanage the affairs of the Eastern Churches that are presently in communion with it, and I sincerely doubt that the Eastern Orthodox will ever accept such an arrangement (nor should they).

Those here who are most proficient in Ukrainian are, I suspect, clergy of the UGCC - and none of them are really anonymous; we all know their identities.

On that basis, I can understand their reticence to apply their linguistic skills to the catechism text. It's one thing for laypersons to do so (even if they are not anonymous, as is true of so many of us here).

I agree.

Frankly, in the event that the catechism turns out to be disappointingly less-than-faithfully Eastern, this would probably going to be the most judicious approach.

I think it would be fair to say that, unlike the Melkites, and by reason of all sorts of unfortunate politial factors, the UGCC is a Church in transition. In other words, its history over the last hundred years has not enabled it to re-appropriate its own patrimony to the same degree that the Melkites maintain it. With each successive patriarch since Metropolitan Andriy, however, the process has advanced - and we can expect significant steps under Patriarch Svyatoslav - but it will hardly be surprising to find that the new catechism continues to reflect a residual Latinisation.

I was just going through the books belonging to our late parish priest, and see that there was another catechism published in 1990 (or thereabouts). That being the case, perhaps the forthcoming 2031 edition will be properly, more fully Byzantinised. I remain optimistic.

I think it would be fair to say that, unlike the Melkites, and by reason of all sorts of unfortunate politial factors, the UGCC is a Church in transition. In other words, its history over the last hundred years has not enabled it to re-appropriate its own patrimony to the same degree that the Melkites maintain it. With each successive patriarch since Metropolitan Andriy, however, the process has advanced - and we can expect significant steps under Patriarch Svyatoslav - but it will hardly be surprising to find that the new catechism continues to reflect a residual Latinisation.

So perhaps that third way is reflected in the Catechism?

It is difficult if not impossible to compare "apples to apples" with Eastern Catholic churches when you are discussing "transitions". The longest standing and most consistent fraternal hierarchal consultation between Greek Catholic and sister Orthodox church hierarchs is the UGCC and the UOC-USA/UOCC. The dialogue is essentially nonexistent between the Antiochians in the US and the Melkites, and certainly in this country there is no recognition at all of the "Zoghby Initiative" amongst the Antiochians. Currently has the most vivacious renewal of traditional Eastern monastic life of any Greek Catholic church is with the UGCC Studites, with several of them (+Venedykt and +Josyp) recently being consecrated to the ranks of the episcopacy.

The point is once again that a tit-for-tat "I'm more Eastern than you" amongst Eastern Catholics is really superfluous and essentially dishonest. Each Church has its beauty and genius, and each its unique challenges. To brand one as "hopelessly latinized" will only reveal the reality that, as I stated before, every particular Eastern Catholic Church has its latinized skeletons in their respective closets. Rosaries and recited liturgies are not completely unknown amongst the Melkites, as I myself have seen in the past. The 2009 Melkite Liturgikon allows only one antiphon to be taken and "other ecumenic petitions" to be inserted and read by a layman other than a priest or deacon at the Ektene after the Gospel – this latter hard to describe other than a neo-latinized direct borrowing from the lay petitions of the Novus Ordo. Where do you stop?

As Greek Catholics we are all on the road together, and attempting to characterize one particular Church off as hopelessly latinized, will never get it, etc. is not honest, disrespectful, and does no service to greater Catholic unity.

Regarding catechisms, A lot of Orthodox criticize, have criticized, and will continue to criticize St. Peter Mohyla's catechism as well; nonetheless for centuries it still a mainstay.

Some Eastern Catholic clergy see their history as a progress from schism and spiritual stagnation into a life of discipline, renewal and restored religious practice in the Catholic communion. For this group, the adoption of certain Latin—they would say “Catholic”—devotions and liturgical uses is a sign of this new identity. Such attitudes reflect an interior erosion of the Eastern Christian consciousness, a “latinization of the heart” resulting from a formation insensitive to the true nature of the variety of traditions within the Catholic Church.

Others, while not denying their commitment to the Catholic communion nor underestimating the obvious spiritual benefits it has brought to their Churches, see themselves as Orthodox in communion with Rome, distinguished from their Orthodox Sister Churches in nothing but the fact of that communion and its doctrinal and ecclesial consequences. They see the Latinisms that have crept into their tradition as a loss of identity, an erosion of their heritage in favor of foreign customs with which they can in no way identify themselves. For some, latinization is a sign of their identity, for others its negation, and both are right, because they perceive themselves differently.

Underlying these issues, of course, is the more serious question of Rome’s credibility: is the Holy See to be believed in what it says about restoring the Eastern Catholic heritage? The morale of some of the younger Eastern Catholic clergy has of late been deeply affected by this cul-de-sac: they feel mandated to do one thing by the Holy See, and then are criticized or even disciplined by their bishop if they try to obey.

The problem, as usual, is one of leadership, without which the hesitant or reluctant have no one to follow. What is needed is not just discipline and obedience, but also clergy education loyal to the clear policy of the Church on this question, and prudent pastoral preparation. This is the only way out of the vicious cycle that has been created: the proposed reforms are resisted because the clergy and the people are not prepared to accept them—yet some Church leaders do little or nothing to prepare the people for a renewal that the leaders themselves do not understand or accept.

Although I cannot pretend to read minds, I think there are two main reasons behind this deep-rooted reluctance to welcome the clear and unambiguous policy of Rome in its program of liturgical restoration of the Eastern traditions: 1) the restoration seems a pointless archaism; 2) its opponents are convinced in their hearts that some of the practices proposed are not “Catholic”, and hence, not “right”. That this directly contradicts the teaching of the Holy See is an irony that does not seem to dawn on them.

The first objection is easily dispensed with. The orientation of Catholic liturgical renewal is never towards the past but toward present pastoral needs. Of course, the liturgical scholar studies the past, but the purpose of such historical research is not to discover the past—much less to imitate it—but to recover the integrity of the pristine tradition which the past may well have obscured. The aim is not to restore the past, but to overcome it. For history is not the past, but a genetic vision of the present, a present seen in continuity with its roots. It is precisely those who do not know their past who are incapable of true, organic change. They remain victims of the latest cliché, prisoners of present useage because they have no objective standard against which to measure it.

The proposed restoration, then, is not a blind imitation of a dead past, but an attempt, precisely, to free Eastern Catholics from a past in which, severed from the roots of their own tradition, they were deprived of any organic development and could conceive of growth only as sterile servility to their Latin confreres. Can one seriously propose this as a program to be preserved in our day?

Hence the irony of those critics of the Eastern Catholic liturgical restoration who accuse its promoters of fostering a return to the Middle Ages. As we shall see in the next section, it is precisely in the Middle Ages that the practices like infant communion in the Latin rite are first called into question for typically medieval motives that no one with any sense would heed today. So it is not the proponents of restoration but its opponents that are behind the times, stuck in a medieval rut out of which the major Catholic scholarly voices in this field have been leading the Church in this century.

(. . . )

Of course, no one can expect every Eastern Catholic Church leader to know all this history. What one can expect of them, however, is that they trust the leadership of the supreme universal magisterium of the Catholic Church in its indications for this renewal and to do what they are told. The supreme magisterium’s policies for our liturgical renewal may not always meet with understanding and agreement, but they should at least meet with obedience. Otherwise, what can we possibly mean when we say Eastern Catholic? But unless the liturgical restoration is accompanied by an interior renewal of the Eastern Christian ethos and spirit, it will remain little more than ritualism. As the late Archbishop Joseph Tawil wrote in his Christmas message of 1970, we must have “the courage to be ourselves”.

See my post under Auto Cephalic Churches, where I quote Father Taft directly: