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

Why not present Vespers a canonical/moral "obligation"? Technically, it is in most of our Traditions. No Vespers, no fasting (from laziness, as opposed to hardship) = no Communion?

Michael, it has been done. In this regard the Particular Law of the UGCC in the USA (the Pastoral Guide ) is helpful as it specifically allows Vespers, Matins or the Divine Liturgy to meet any sense of "obligation" on feasts or Sundays. We still have much catechizing to do to get Vespers out there and get away from the abuse of Saturday evening Divine Liturgies, but a statement like this from the hierarchs is a wonderful start. I don’t know of any other particular Church that has yet gone this far in clarifying that the Divine Praises are equally part of the Eucharistic cycle.

Beware of gross generalizations; Kyr +Andrey himself was a Basilian and his opposition was equally from non-monastic and Basilian paramonastic bishops (Kyr +Hrihory Khomyshyn was arguably his biggest detractor for the Ruthenian Rescension books, who was not a Basilian). While in the more distant past this was often the case, there have been some very good “vostochnik” Basilian bishops in recent times such as Kyr +Vasyl (Medvit) and Kyr +Volodymyr (Yushchak). There are also some Basilians assisting Fr. Roman (Terkhovskiy) with the research for Kyr +Andrey's cause for beatification.

Just to mention I put up a first analysis here:

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/first-look-at-the-new-ukrainian-catholic-catechism/

I have a UGCC friend working on a more in-depth article of a general nature which I hope to post in the near future.

Great blog post! The more I learn about the new catechism the less likely I am to use it or recommend it to others. Thanks for the information.

Thanks for the kind words.

I do think, however, that there will be many parts of the new UGCC Catechism that many Orthodox could enjoy. I look forward to receiving the review a friend is writing that will cover other aspects of the Catechism and putting that up at the blog.

I am sure that there will be some good things in the new catechism, but I still would not recommend to a friend a book on Eastern Christianity that basically supplies a Latinized ecclesiology / theology on various important topics, because that would serve to simply confuse the poor fellow.

Apotheoun, in all charity, you comments throughout this post are rather disturbing and show that you are thoroughly confused about your own faith.

The purpose of the UGCC's Catechism is to teach the Faith to the people of the UGCC, and not to teach them an ambiguous form of “eastern Christianity” (for instance, what is “eastern Christianity’s” teaching on birth control?). The UGCC’s Faith clearly involves all of the teachings of greater Catholic Church to include the belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Papal Infallibility, and every other Dogmatic proclamation that the Church has ever made whether through an Ecumenical Counsel or by the Pope speaking "Ex Cathedra," and this is no different than any other Catholic Church/Rite to include Catholics of the Melkite Church.

The various Catholic Churches/Rites only differ from one another in tradition (with a small “t”), governance, and discipline – Dogmatic beliefs are the exact same for all. As a convert to the Catholic Faith, it appears that you were poorly catechized in this matter. Latinization only refers to the adoption of the Latin Church/Rite’s traditions (with a small “t”) within another Rite (i.e. praying the Rosary, praying the Stations of the Cross, the celibate priesthood ect.), and the Catholic Church as tried very hard to reverse much of the Latinization to the point that some of the Churches/Rites have actually thought the reversals too extreme (to include the Melkite Rite!).

Any member of the Catholic Faith who questions Dogmatic proclamations is not in good standing with the Church and should seek pastoral counsel and Reconciliation when appropriate. Questioning Papal infallibility is no different than questioning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist – both have been declared Dogma by the Church. “Cafeteria Catholicism” has many forms and is not exclusive to Latin Rite Catholics who pick and choose what they believe and don’t believe. I guarantee that the Melkite Patriarch would never question one Dogmatic proclamation by the Catholic Church. Any Catholic Bishop, from any Church/Rite, who did question a Dogma, would be excommunicated and lacitized by the Magestirium of the Church.

I apologize if I’ve interpreted your posts in the wrong manner, but I felt that this had to be said. We are members of the Catholic Church first and foremost, and members of our particular Church/Rite in a secondary manner. God Bless

DtK,

I'm not going to bother to get into the rest of your post but, as regards the above, we Melkites are not a Rite, but a Church, and I find it more than unlikely that you could defend your statement that the Melkite Church deems the reversal of latinizations to have been too extreme. This particularly in view of the fact that we undertook to do so, with considerable energies, before the ink was dry on the documents of Vatican II.

Many years,

Neil

And will continue to do so, if Bishop Nicholas' first Encyclical to the Eparchy of Newton is any indication. I was utterly bowled over by it.

Defend the keys is not saying the Melkites are not a Church, and is only echoing the language of pretty much all official Church documents up until at least VII, which I have drawn people's attention to on numerous occasions. The terms rite and church were used synoymously in regards to eastern churches in all Church documents prior to at least the seventies, including the documents of Vatican II. I have in previous threads pointed out several quotations from the much vaunted Orientalum Ecclesiarum that affirm that the terms can be understood synonymously, once again to save people looking, OE 2 and 3:

" The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.(2)"

The issue of language dealt with, the next item from OE deals specifically with the question raised by this thread.

"3. These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

In short, DTK is only saying exactly what the documents of the Catholic Church say. I'll again extend my continuously unanswered challenge to show me, from official documents, such as OE, where exactly it says that the Eastern Churches are not required to believe in Papal Primacy as expressed by Vatican I, the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, etc. People can rail against myself and DTK all they want, but so far nobody has actually responded to my frequent quotations of Church documents with ones supporting their position. If the official position of the Catholic Church is that Eastern Catholics don't have to believe these things, it shouldn't be that difficult to find some statement of it with an imprimatur.

This language of what is 'required' is starting to rub me the wrong way. 'Required'? By whom?

At the most basic level, what is required of churches in the broader family of the Church is that they consent to the orthodox Faith as defined by the councils. Beyond that, it is within the domain of the different churches (or 'Rites') to appropriate and manifest the Faith each in their own way - providing that way is consistent with Tradition and authentic to the individual church.

The teaching magesterium of the Roman Church might say any number of things which, if genuinely consistent with Tradition is to be held by the faithful. After all, if it is consistent, why wouldn't it be held? At the same time, because this same magesterium adheres to a very different set of soteriological assumptions than its Eastern confreres, those ideas it derives from such assumptions - even if they are sound - surely do not need to be subscribed to in such an unyielding, juridical way.

I am an Eastern Catholic. I know what is taught by Rome about the Conception and the Dormition of the BVM, and I equally know that it is not described in the same terms I would use. I think the respective teachings can be considered consistent with Tradition, but I don't make much appeal to them. AM I 'required' to? Maybe the legalists of the Church think so, but I don't remotely see how I could be expected to when I am told at the same time to be faithful to the traditions of the Church to which I belong.

If I was 'required' to believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption the way a Roman does, the very feast days of my own calendar would be undermined. Unless to be a church within the Church is just to be a minority group that celebrates a pretty liturgy, that is.

Defend the Keys is certainly launching an unjust attack, I hope for the benefit of spiritual rather then personal 'carnal' desires, on Apotheoun!

Well, DtK, you might be richly chatechised in R.Catholicism. So, what!

In fact I find cathechism the most simple brainwashing way on both churches for wide simple masses of church members.

I don't know what everyone's church affiliation is here, but if you are a member of the UGCC, and you're saying, I may choose not to accept the new catechism, well at that point it's pretty obvious that you're rejecting the church's authority.

"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you,
that he may sift you as wheat: / But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith
fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

Arbanon, I'm sorry to say but are being sifted as wheat. Not really sure why someone who considers the Cathechism of the Catholic Church to be a brainwashing intrument is on a Catholic forum in the first place?