Review of The New Ukrainian Catholic Catechism

  • Thread starter Thread starter 5Loaves
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve heard from others who have read this Catechism in the original language that the reviewer’s critiques are both accurate and fair. I’ve also heard that the reviewer himself (a Ukrainian Greek Catholic) has received a lot of very unChristian flak for his comments. But in his review he was simply attempting to call a spade a spade, and certainly meant no disrespect.

Going off the basis that the review is accurate, I’m very disappointed. I was sincerely looking forward to reading this Catechism when it’s finally released in English. But there is plenty of other great Eastern Catholic catechetical material in English out there that is completely true to our Eastern roots. I guess I’ll stick with that stuff. 😃
 
Seamus_L said:
So exactly who’s approval does this catechism require ?
Click to expand...
Well for one it needs approval from the hierarchs of the UGCC, which it obviously has. That being said, it has not been uncommon for the highest authorities in the UGCC to approve of things (liturgical practices and texts, theological approaches, etc.) that have been contrary to the authentic Eastern/Byzantine tradition, as has been demonstrated by many much more knowledgable than I. The fact that this Catechism has the approval of the UGCC hierarchy does not place it above criticism and/or the potential for improvement.
 
Somehow I can’t help feeling that if this catechism was regarded much more favorably by the OICWR types online, then any criticism of it would have been interpreted as defiance of the UGCC’s hierarchy.
 
Seamus_L said:
Somehow I can’t help feeling that if this catechism was regarded much more favorably by the OICWR types online, then any criticism of it would have been interpreted as defiance of the UGCC’s hierarchy.
Click to expand...
Such speculation is rather pointless as we have no evidence that this would be the case. The fact is that this Catechism has been released and has been criticized by at least one person who would’ve rather seen the it more faithful to the Eastern/Byzantine tradition. That’s not even enough to presume that the reviewer was an “OICWR” type.

As an aside, I don’t really like the fact that “OICWR” is now being used in a pejorative sense, much like the dreaded “U” word. Can’t an Eastern Catholic be 100% faithful to their authentic Eastern (or Oriental for that matter) heritage without being “condemned” as an “OICWR” type? It sort of reminds me of Met. Sheptytsky, who was accused of being a “Russophile,” a “Bolshevik,” “Byzantine,” etc., etc., etc. simply because he wanted to restore the Byzantine liturgy of the UGCC to its authentic form sans any Latinizations. And we all know how that ended. :rolleyes:
 
I’m sorry Phillip, but I don’t know what other term to use besides OICWR types. I’m referring to the people who dominate and moderate the 3 or so online forums dedicated to Eastern Christianity, several bloggers, as well as many who post here. Most are converts who wish to see the Eastern Churches become identical to the Orthodox Churches, and a high percentage of them eventually leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy. My intention was not to be rude, but the fact remains that many people online refer to themselves on a regular basis as “Orthodox In Communion With Rome”. I simple added “types” to that.
 
I’m sorry Phillip, but I don’t know what other term to use besides OICWR types. I’m referring to the people who dominate and moderate the 3 or so online forums dedicated to Eastern Christianity, several bloggers, as well as many who post here. Most are converts who wish to see the Eastern Churches become identical to the Orthodox Churches, and a high percentage of them eventually leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy. My intention was not to be rude, but the fact remains that many people online refer to themselves on a regular basis as “Orthodox In Communion With Rome”. I simply added “types” to that.
 
5Loaves said:
The new Catechism of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church
“Christ – Our Pascha” from an ecumenical perspective: One step forward, two steps backward
By Mykola Krokosh
translated by Alexander Roman

See also previous thread last year Presentation of the UGCC Catechism in June
Click to expand...
I hesitated a great deal about posting this response. I hope I do not anger anyone or cause too much of an uproar. I had been very much looking forward to this catechism coming out, as can be evidenced here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=565997&highlight=UGCC+catechism

Now, to the issue at hand. This was a very frustrating review to read, particularly by someone like me who is a Roman Catholic. The author of the review seems to spend much of his time stating things that he feels is wrong with the Latin Church and then blasting the CUGCC for following what we profess. The second part does not bother me. I would fully expect that when I pick up that particular catechism, that it is reflective of the manner in which UGCC members understand their faith. Anyone who knows me on this forum knows that I have been fully supportive of Eastern Catholics living their faith within their Tradition to include the removal of things from a liturgical or devotional standpoint which stem from the Western Church. However, one cannot help but wonder why, if the author of that review is so opposed to Roman Catholic theology, dogma, and praxis, he does not simply become Orthodox and get it over with. He seems to find the Latin Church distasteful and to be more concerned with being Orthodox, than with being Catholic, Eastern or otherwise.

In addition, while I can understand how Eastern and Western Christians can believe the same thing but express it differently, there are some issues which are not those of expression. For example, Vatican I. One either believes in papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra on issues of faith and morals, as defined by the council, or one does not. There is no gray area there. The author of that review seems to reject it, or at least that is the impression that I get. I was under the impression from several threads on this forum and information elsewhere that Eastern Catholics do accept Vatican I so while it does not surprise me that it would be in the CUGCC, the reviewer’s tone when discussing it does.

There are several other examples from the review that I could point out but I don’t want to start a big thing. As I noted above, I was very much looking forward to this catechism coming out so that I could learn more about the universal Church and the Traditions of my Eastern Catholic brethren. I still look forward to the catechism, but now, considering how this theologian wrote about things, I feel as if there is much less universality then I previously felt and hope for.

I hope I have not annoyed or upset anyone. I should also add that if someone would rather discuss this in another thread in fear that this one will be disrupted, I am fine with that as well.

Frustrating…
 
Seamus_L said:
My intention was not to be rude, but the fact remains that many people online refer to themselves on a regular basis as “Orthodox In Communion With Rome”. I simple added “types” to that.
Click to expand...
That’s true, there are many who do that; but it doesn’t follow that they all belong to a particular “type”.
 
Seamus may be onto something here. It does seem that being Orthodox in Communion with Rome is a pipedream. Communion states that we are of one body (such as communion with Christ) and as such, we breathe the same air and the same blood flows through our veins. Communion ought to be more than just Eucharistic intercommunion. It should be more than “we all love the Pope”. The same way that the SSPX should never be reinstated if they do not accept Vatican II fully and without reservations, it should be the same for Eastern Catholics and Vatican I (among others). Rome doesn’t teach that the Pope’s powers are that of how it was in the First Millennium, its not in the Catechism, its not even in the UGCC’s catechism. So for us to make a claim otherwise means we are not in communion (having a common faith) with Rome.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Seamus may be onto something here. It does seem that being Orthodox in Communion with Rome is a pipedream. Communion states that we are of one body (such as communion with Christ) and as such, we breathe the same air and the same blood flows through our veins. Communion ought to be more than just Eucharistic intercommunion. It should be more than “we all love the Pope”. The same way that the SSPX should never be reinstated if they do not accept Vatican II fully and without reservations, it should be the same for Eastern Catholics and Vatican I (among others). Rome doesn’t teach that the Pope’s powers are that of how it was in the First Millennium, its not in the Catechism, its not even in the UGCC’s catechism. So for us to make a claim otherwise means we are not in communion (having a common faith) with Rome.
Click to expand...
There generally aren’t any easy answers about what names make sense and what names don’t. For example, have you ever met an Anglo-Papalist?
 
Peter_J said:
There generally aren’t any easy answers about what names make sense and what names don’t. For example, have you ever met an Anglo-Papalist?
Click to expand...
Well, Orthodox in Communion with Rome denotes that one practices the Eastern Orthodox faith and praxis fully. I guess the UGCC Catechism denotes that there is an underlying Western spirituality amidst the Eastern traditions. And this is what many here refer to as Eastern Rite Roman Catholics, or Roman Catholics with an Eastern Liturgy.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I’ve heard from others who have read this Catechism in the original language that the reviewer’s critiques are both accurate and fair. I’ve also heard that the reviewer himself (a Ukrainian Greek Catholic) has received a lot of very unChristian flak for his comments. But in his review he was simply attempting to call a spade a spade, and certainly meant no disrespect.

Going off the basis that the review is accurate, I’m very disappointed. I was sincerely looking forward to reading this Catechism when it’s finally released in English. But there is plenty of other great Eastern Catholic catechetical material in English out there that is completely true to our Eastern roots. I guess I’ll stick with that stuff. 😃
Click to expand...
I read the posted, translation of the review, which I assume is accurate. The post is not really a review but a critique with a very narrow lens of the work’s “ecumenical value”. I think a dismissive attitude the work is premature, as the principal goal of the catechism is presumably catechism.

The review gives some praise to Eastern theological perspectives present in the work, and seems a bit overly hostile to connections to Western ideas. The bulk of the criticism, ISTM, iinolves complaints that the work is insufficiently PC from an EO perspective, and insufficiently critical of the UGCC. The latter aspect is especially odd: why would a catechism be written in such a way?

The author conveys an attitude of disdain to the last four centuries of the history of his church, and, for reasons unclear, apparently wants more of that in the catechism. He is certainly entitled to express whatever low opinion he has of his church and its people, but such expressions cannot honestly be termed “calling a spade a spade”. Moreover, given the polemic nature of the writing, there is much that cannot honestly be called “fair”. It’s shame that the theological with a doctoral credential writes this way. It is not surprising that he is getting flak; it is well-deserved.
 
dvdjs said:
I read the posted, translation of the review, which I assume is accurate. The post is not really a review but a critique with a very narrow lens of “ecumenical value”. I think a dismissive attitude the work is premature - presumably the principal goal of the catechism is catechism.

The review gives some praise to Eastern theological perspectives present in the work, and seems a bit overly hostile to connections to Western ideas. The bulk of the criticism, ISTM, is complaints that the work is insufficiently PC from an EO perspective. The author writes an attitude of disdain to the last four centuries of the history of his church. He is certainly entitled to express whatever low opinion he has of his church and its people, but such expressions cannot honestly be termed “calling a spade a spade”. :rolleyes: Given the polemic nature of the writing it can hardly be called “fair”. It’s shame that the theological with a doctoral credential writes this way. It is not surprising that he is getting flak it appears to be well-deserved.
Click to expand...
But sometimes telling the truth has to be brutal.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
The fact is that this Catechism has been released and has been criticized by at least one person who would’ve rather seen the it more faithful to the Eastern/Byzantine tradition.
Click to expand...
That is not what comes through as the main theme of the criticism in the review.
Can’t an Eastern Catholic be 100% faithful to their authentic Eastern (or Oriental for that matter) heritage without being “condemned” as an “OICWR” type?
Click to expand...
Very interesting choice of words. I think that we should be faithful to our authentic “traditions” - that is an organic process - rather than to a “heritage”. The latter approach too often elevates reading about experience of a select few over the organic experience of the integrated experience of the church reflected in its traditions. We don’t study our religion, we live it.
 
ConstantineTG said:
But sometimes telling the truth has to be brutal.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the truth is brutal, but brutality is not a criterion of truth. Moreover, it is not clear that anything is gained by expressing truth brutally rather than dispassionately.

But that is all academic. The review strays outside the realm of truth into polemics. Too bad.
 
dvdjs said:
Sometimes the truth is brutal, but brutality is not a criterion of truth. Moreover, it is not clear that anything is gained by expressing truth brutally rather than dispassionately.

But that is all academic. The review strays outside the realm of truth into polemics. Too bad.
Click to expand...
The brutality of truth is not from the one who proclaims it, but rather the one who hears it and cannot accept it.

Would the manner this criticism was written bother you if the points given was something you agreed with? A good test of truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top