www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ukrainian Catechism

It's been 2 years or more now has anyone heard of what's going on with this or where you can buy it?

St Demetrius Ukrainian Catholic Church in Toronto sells copies of the English version in their bookstore. They have a website and those interested might inquire there.

I have the Ukrainian version and use it since I'm a "native speaker."

Alex

I was just on the St Demetrius website and couldn't find anything regarding a catechism or even a bookstore. I tried googling for "Christ Our Pascha", and couldn't find it there either. Are you sure it's been released yet? The latest entry I could find was from last year, saying that was due later in 2012.Thanks, Glenn.

They do have a bookstore although it probably doesn't have a website.

You might want to send the Church an email to ask if they have copies around.

A copy was purchased for me (in English) there.

Alex

I decided not to buy it after I found out more about its contents.

Dear Todd,

Yes, it has been critiqued severely by the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" crowd and I even translated one such critique into English.

The individual in question has been roundly lambasted for his comments and I have been too for translating them . . .

Personally, I see nothing wrong with anything he said and I think we owe him a debt of gratitude for raising the issue of certain "myths" that Eastern Catholics entertain about church unity.

For example, EC's believe that unity with Rome was never broken in the years prior to the Union of Brest. The commentator remarked that if this were really true, then why the need for the Union of Brest and the severe conflict that followed it? (In fact, the New Catholic encyclopedia, in its article on the Union of Brest, said as much).

Again, not only Rome, but we ECers can talk a good talk about ecumenism with Orthodoxy.

In fact, we haven't moved beyond what might be called the "seige mentality" of yesterday's Uniatism.

However, there is much in the UGCC Catechism that is of value to the rank and file. The sections on prayer, as the above commentator also agrees, emphasizes the Eastern Liturgical tradition and educates about it.

Also, the "seige mentality" of the UGCC has also been reinforced by the way Orthodoxy in its historical incarnation in the ROC has treated it (and also the RC Church).

We North Americans tend to see things in the light of "separation of Church and State" but that is something peculiar to our culture.

The struggle between the ROC and the UGCC was a struggle between peoples, between a colonizer and the colonized (as also occurred under RC Poland).

The unfortunate ramifications of that include a UGCC perspective on Latinization that became particularly cherished among our members for its ability to differentiate our identity separate from that promoted by Great Russian chauvinism.

Thus, the Filioque and a number of other things helped symbolically assert our independence of Russia and Russia's Church.

Whenever the ROC began its "Easternization" campaigns in Ukrainian areas occupied by Russian forces (whether Tsarist or Soviet), this meant, at one and the same time, "Russification" and the first thing such campaigns did was . . . forcibly remove the Filioque from the Creed UGCC parishes had.

To this day, overly "Eastern" UGCC priests are often considered with suspicion. And the fact that there are zealous family members of very Eastern UGCC priests who go on record as saying they are "Russian" and deny Ukraine exists at all - and I've heard this myself - doesn't help matters any. The old epithets of "katsap" and the like appear to be on the verge of resurrecting in some parishes.

Theological perspectives are, for purposes of understanding "Latinization" and "Easternization," incomplete paradigms in this respect.

I've never understood why EC theological schools tend to turn a blind eye to social scientific studies like cultural anthropology and sociology to help future church leaders understand how social-historical processes impact theological and ecclesial issues.

Our Orthodox seminary in Winnipeg certainly has no problem teaching similar subjects . . .

Alex

Well, it is after all a Catholic catechism.
Not a Ukrainian Orthodox catechism.
Not a Ukrainian "Orthodox in communion with Rome" catechism.
It's a Ukrainian Catholic catechism.
A catechism is meant to teach and pass on the Truth, not to fit into a particular agenda.

As Bishop John Elya has said:

I take everything that Bishop John says with a grain of salt. After all he was not elected a bishop by the Holy Synod, but was appointed by the Pope. He is a Latinizer through and through.

As far as the UGCC catechism is concerned, you might as well save the money and use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because that is what it blandly regurgitates.

Any chance of getting rid of this term. It should be discarded because it damages the "dialogue of love" between our Churches. It is as much an irritant to the Orthodox as "Uniate" is to the Catholics -and we learnt not to use “Uniate.”

It may not be possible Very Reverand Father, as the "Russian Catholics of the Byzantine Rite (Nikonian and pre-Nikonian Recension)" are actually properly called "Russian Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome".

Bishop John was nominated to the list of three (terna) by the Patriarchal Synod and appointed by the Pope. He is certainly no "Latinizer through and through", though he might not be as comfortable with the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" as I am. One of the first things Saidna John did as eparchial bishop was to nominate me to the eparchial College of Consultors because, in his own words, "I want the perspective of a married priest." I have never forgotten this act of exquisite sensitivity and consider him one of my fathers-in-God and a dear personal friend. And yes, we do like to spar about contentious issues. It keeps us young and feisty! Too feisty for some, I guess!

Our opinions on the good bishop's theology differ. Rome has no business appointing Melkite bishops anywhere in the world. As far as the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" theory is concerned, I reject the notion, because it gives too much important to Rome among the communion of Churches.

Do you have a reference for that title? Something from the Vatican? The Congregation for Oriental Churches?

For reasons not shared by the Orthodox, the term is not well liked in Rome either. Think about it.

Dear Father Ambrose,

Rome hasn't excommunicated any EC's for calling themselves whatever they like.

Russian Catholics do refer to their Church as the "Russian Orthodox-Catholic Church."

There are two references for this. The first is found in the Ukrainian language works of Met. Ilarion Ohienko of the UOCC. I first found it in his book, "The Holy Pochaiv Lavra: Bastion of Orthodoxy."

Ohienko actually approves of the term as he says it kept the EC's outside the Latinizing gambit. He bemoaned the fact that the EC's "forgot that, in their essence (sic), they were Orthodox." And in another place, he wrote, "the traitors (sic - a reference to the uniates) called themselves "Orthodox united to Rome" or "Greco-Uniates."

With respect to the Russians, on the website "akafist.narod.ru" there is listed a Russian Catholic "akathist to the Heart of Jesus." The link to that akathist has information that explains the background of that devotion among some, but not the majority, of Russian Catholics. The link makes reference to the "Russian Orthodox-Catholic Church" meaning "united to Rome" (Pravoslavno-kafolichnaya).

Alex