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

Dear Todd,

In a perfect world, there would be perfect unity between the Churches, East and West, and so no reference to Rome would be necessary since Rome's primacy (however one understands it) would not be an issue.

For Eastern Catholic Churches, it was union to Rome that separated them from their mother Orthodox Churches. That is simply a fact. (Both you and I are outside world Orthodoxy for belonging to EC Churches that are united to Rome, as you know.)

The term then, as I say it, affirms we are "Orthodox" (theologically as well as culturally - although that is open to debate obviously) but we have affirmed unity with Rome as a qualifier. And that qualifier keeps us out of real union with Orthodoxy, whether we give Rome a prominence as you say, or not.

Don't take my word for it. Just ask Fr. Ambrose, if you dare!

Alex

Dear Father Ambrose,

I agree that that term is offensive to Orthodox Christians - and to not a few Eastern Catholics.

At the same time, EC's do use the term "Orthodox Christian" in their liturgies.

It can also be confusing since "Orthodox" implies one is in communion with world Orthodoxy, especially to most people who are foreign to the whole debate.

But the term "Orthodox" is used by other Churches, such as the Miaphysite, Non-Chalcedonian family of Churches. Rome certainly hasn't given up that term and prays in at least one liturgical Canon for "all who teach the Orthodox Faith" - and we know what this affirms.

Does world Orthodoxy own the term "Orthodox" in such a way so as to prevent other Churches and Christians from using it?

Alex

Dear Todd,

I've read both the Latin Catechism and the Ukrainian Catechism.

And you could not be more wrong on this score. There are issues with the latter, but it is not a regurgitation of the RC Catechism.

I know you did not read the Ukr. Catechism, but I will concede to you that it is far from the Eastern text you would be comfortable with.

But not a regurgitation. As for your Melkite Communion, not all Melkites would agree with your Eastern stance or comments. I came across a Melkite today who thought I was crazy to even suggest the use of the term "Orthodox" as a whole for EC's.

Alex

No, of course not. For example there is the Orthodox Presbyterian Church where "Orthodox" is being used to indicate its strict Calvinism. Nothing offensive there.

But "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is being used to claim a position which the Orthodox find alarming since it is not true. By entering into communion with Rome and accepting dogmas which are rejected in Orthodoxy and renouncing communion with the Orthodox clergy and faithful an Orthodox Christian ceases to be Orthodox.

Truly alarming!

Russians have always used the distinction of "Ka t olicheskie" to mean Roman Catholics
and "Ka f olicheskie" to refer to themselves, the Russian Orthodox.

If Russian Byzantines are now using the f version they are making a claim to be in communion with the Patriarch of Moscow.

One wonders if Rome accepts itself as being in communion with the Orthodox?

I have no interest in forking out my hard earned money in order to purchase the Ukrainian Catechism based upon what it says in connection with the bishop of Rome. The ecclesiology is clearly Roman and not Eastern. If you want to give me a copy for free I will gladly read it and even write critiques of various sections of the catechism indicating where I agree with it and where I disagree with it.

Agreed, Father Ambrose!

Alex

Dear Father Ambrose,

You are more than correct on the "t" and "f" distinction. The Russian Catholics do indeed use the "f" version.

Alex

Dear Todd,

Forgive me, but I never even suggested you buy a copy of the Ukrainian Catholic Catechism.

And if the public reaction to Dr Mykola Krokosh's critiques of it is any indication, I wouldn't want you to become a target of that same nastiness via our own critiques of the catechism.

You raise an important issue about the "Roman" nature of the catechism.

However, it would seem that one can either be "fully Orthodox" which means actually joining Orthodoxy and cutting ties communion with Rome or else being a "very Eastern Greek-Catholic."

But you seem to want to have it both ways. You want to be Orthodox in every which way and remain a member of an EC Church while telling Rome it has it wrong on all points where it differs with Orthodoxy.

That is very Orthodox of you, but it certainly isn't Eastern Catholic in any sense.

There are EC Churches, therefore, that are very tolerant of perspectives critical of Rome and the tenets one would obviously need to agree with if one would be in full union with it.

That still doesn't make those Churches "Orthodox." To be Orthodox means that one is in full communion with Orthodoxy.

Any else is a masquerade and could also be a kind of modern EC adaptation to what just isn't real.

Todd, with all respect and esteem, your position is one that neither Orthodoxy nor Rome would accept.

Alex

Astounding that they claim to be in communion with the Patriarch! Hard to believe that native Russian speakers would not know the importance of the f and t spelling.

Bless Father (and if you are willing to give me your "atomic blessing," please let me know in advance so I can be sitting down, holding onto the edges of the chair while grasping a picture of the pope . . .)

Members of the "Russian Orthodox-Catholic Church" and who use the "f" in their spelling of "katolichnaya" are fully under the Pope of Rome and are not with the MP.

Alex

Linguistically that is not possible. Is it possible that these are not native Russian speakers? Poles maybe?

Of course, one other theory, from another outsider perspective - they never claimed to be out of Communion with Rome or the Russian Patriarch. They claim to be in union with both - whether one, both or neither recognize it is up to them.

So where and how could I get a copy of this interesting catechism of the Urainian Greek-Catholic Church - in English?!?

wonders a greek-catholic minded catholic in Finland