Review of The New Ukrainian Catholic Catechism

[Vico]

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

Thank you for posting this. The author sees the publication of the catechism as destructive and dwelt upon Balamand statement. The most important point of Balamand was:
20) These rules will not resolve the problems which are worrying us unless each of the parties concerned has a will to pardon, based on the Gospel and, within the context of a constant effort for renewal, accompanied by the unceasing desire to seek the full communion which existed for more than a thousand years between our Churches. It is here that the dialogue of love must be present with a continually renewed intensity and perseverance which alone can overcome reciprocal lack of understanding and which is the necessary climate for deepening the theological dialogue that will permit arriving at full communion.
The objection of the author to the catechism is particularly that it continues to teach that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is a valid church. The author believes that there should only be one particular church in the Ukraine: he states:“This document has become dated even before its publication because it is a determined witness of the anti-ecumenical reaction in the UGCC rather than a step forward toward the creation in Ukraine of one Particular Church.”
I believe that his statement is not ecumenical for it does not respect the UGCC as a Church. Ecumenical means (Merriam Webster):

Ecumenical
1: worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application 2a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches
2b : promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation

 

[dvdjs]

That being said, I disagree, somewhat, to the claim that we don’t study our religion, we live it. The fact is that we do both.

That is fair. I should not pit these as though they are antagonistic, rather they are synergistic. But experience and practice be fruitful with little “study”, but the reverse is unlikely to be true.

I would like to understand more what “organic experience” means. I hear tons of talk from lots of people trumpeting phrases like “organic development” and such. But I’ve yet to hear anyone actually define what “organic development” or “organic experience” means. From what vague notions people have conveyed to me, the phrases could be used to either defend the persistence of Latinization among Eastern (and Oriental) Catholics. Similarly it could be used to defend the process of de-Latinization. So until I understand clearly what “organic experience/development” means, I can’t really comment any further.

This is a great question that I have often raised myself, but I don’t get much response. In this context it is simple - tradition is passed along continuously from one to another; heritage is about some past state that one perhaps wants to reconstruct. Tradition is akin to Apostolic succession, while heritage also entails people who want to make a new church that somehow recreates the church of the Apostles. But I think you get that.

In the context of De-latinization, this is an important discussion that has not been had. (Instead we too often get know-it-alls, like the reviewer, who finds it sufficient to stake out a position and insult others who are there yet.) Following the terms used in the liturgical instructions, the fundamental question is this: what developments over the years of union within particular Eastern churches are “organic” and thus should be retained as part of authentic tradition, and which are not?

Some like the idea of taking present Orthodox practice as the benchmark of organic Easter tradition. That idea, IMO, is terribly flawed and a complete non-starter. First, it is insufficient. Orthodox practice varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, from country, to country. Much of what is thought of as the residual Latinization in the BCC are practices that are current in our sister ACROD.

Second, it presupposes something about the authenticity of developments within EOCs during the past centuries - a period with a varying hot and cold feelings toward the West. Sadly we lack the control group that we really need: suppose there were no schism, what would the EOCs look like today? Absent the pervasive Romophobia, would they be the same or different when compared to the current EOCs? And that is, IMO, the proper reference state for assessing organic development of authentic tradition: the hypothetical sister OC that continued its life in a healthy undivided church. The use of a hypothetical reference may seem odd (although this is common practice for thermodynamic reference states), but I think it is useful that it keeps the discussion open. We avoid the nonsense of the reviewers who suggests that everything that happened in the union is tainted or worse. We avoid the posturing that “Eucharistic Adoration has no place in Eastern Christianity” - even though you tube has many links that prove that a more nuanced position is required simply for the sake of accuracy. We could avoid all the peculiar talk that bends so far backwards as to denigrate the Rosary.

Where will that lead? I don;t know, but i wish we would have an open discussion on these matters.

 

[dvdjs]

Thank you for posting this. The author sees the publication of the catechism as destructive and dwelt upon Balamand statement. The most important point of Balamand was …

These remarks were particularly bad.
Balamand, very carefully repudiated uniatism as a “missionary apostolate”, \as a means to re-unify churches through proselytization. It did not repudiate the EC churches. Rather it validated their right to exist - an idea that represented a major change of attitude among the EOCs, and which caused so much backlash, the Balamand has become a dead letter.

 

[dvdjs]

That is fair. I should not pit these as though they are antagonistic, rather they are synergistic. But experience and practice be fruitful with little “study”, but the reverse is unlikely to be true.

This is a great question that I have often raised myself, but I don’t get much response. In this context it is simple - tradition is passed along continuously from one to another; heritage is about some past state that one perhaps wants to reconstruct. Tradition is akin to Apostolic succession, while heritage also entails people who want to make a new church that somehow recreates the church of the Apostles. But I think you get that.

In the context of De-latinization, this is an important discussion that has not been had. (Instead we too often get know-it-alls, like the reviewer, who finds it sufficient to stake out a position and insult others who are there yet.) Following the terms used in the liturgical instructions, the fundamental question is this: what developments over the years of union within particular Eastern churches are “organic” and thus should be retained as part of authentic tradition, and which are not?

Some like the idea of taking present Orthodox practice as the benchmark of organic Easter tradition. That idea, IMO, is terribly flawed and a complete non-starter. First, it is insufficient. Orthodox practice varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, from country, to country. Much of what is thought of as the residual Latinization in the BCC are practices that are current in our sister ACROD.

Second, it presupposes something about the authenticity of developments within EOCs during the past centuries - a period with a varying hot and cold feelings toward the West. Sadly we lack the control group that we really need: suppose there were no schism, what would the EOCs look like today? Absent the pervasive Romophobia, would they be the same or different when compared to the current EOCs? And that is, IMO, the proper reference state for assessing organic development of authentic tradition: the hypothetical sister OC that continued its life in a healthy undivided church. The use of a hypothetical reference may seem odd (although this is common practice for thermodynamic reference states), but I think it is useful that it keeps the discussion open. We avoid the nonsense of the reviewers who suggests that everything that happened in the union is tainted or worse. We avoid the posturing that “Eucharistic Adoration has no place in Eastern Christianity” - even though you tube has many links that prove that a more nuanced position is required simply for the sake of accuracy. We could avoid all the peculiar talk that bends so far backwards as to denigrate the Rosary.

Where will that lead? I don’t know, but I wish we would have an open discussion on these matters.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

That is fair. I should not pit these as though they are antagonistic, rather they are synergistic. But experience and practice be fruitful with little “study”, but the reverse is unlikely to be true.

This is a great question that I have often raised myself, but I don’t get much response. In this context it is simple - tradition is passed along continuously from one to another; heritage is about some past state that one perhaps wants to reconstruct. Tradition is akin to Apostolic succession, while heritage also entails people who want to make a new church that somehow recreates the church of the Apostles. But I think you get that.

In the context of De-latinization, this is an important discussion that has not been had. (Instead we too often get know-it-alls, like the reviewer, who finds it sufficient to stake out a position and insult others who are there yet.) Following the terms used in the liturgical instructions, the fundamental question is this: what developments over the years of union within particular Eastern churches are “organic” and thus should be retained as part of authentic tradition, and which are not?

Some like the idea of taking present Orthodox practice as the benchmark of organic Easter tradition. That idea, IMO, is terribly flawed and a complete non-starter. First, it is insufficient. Orthodox practice varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, from country, to country. Much of what is thought of as the residual Latinization in the BCC are practices that are current in our sister ACROD.

Second, it presupposes something about the authenticity of developments within EOCs during the past centuries - a period with a varying hot and cold feelings toward the West. Sadly we lack the control group that we really need: suppose there were no schism, what would the EOCs look like today? Absent the pervasive Romophobia, would they be the same or different when compared to the current EOCs? And that is, IMO, the proper reference state for assessing organic development of authentic tradition: the hypothetical sister OC that continued its life in a healthy undivided church. The use of a hypothetical reference may seem odd (although this is common practice for thermodynamic reference states), but I think it is useful that it keeps the discussion open. We avoid the nonsense of the reviewers who suggests that everything that happened in the union is tainted or worse. We avoid the posturing that “Eucharistic Adoration has no place in Eastern Christianity” - even though you tube has many links that prove that a more nuanced position is required simply for the sake of accuracy. We could avoid all the peculiar talk that bends so far backwards as to denigrate the Rosary.

Where will that lead? I don;t know, but i wish we would have an open discussion on these matters.

Excellent thoughts and insights here, dvdjs. Thanks for posting this. You’ve given me a great deal to contemplate.

 

[Peter_J]

What else is the basis of Eastern praxis and theology if not the Orthodox?

I don’t want to get too much into this here, especially since I started a thread on the topic not so long ago, but in many conversations about Eastern Christianity, it is stated or assumed that one cannot be Eastern without being either Catholic or Orthodox. Some are even more restricitive, claiming that one cannot be Eastern without being Orthodox, period. Quite frankly, I find both of these positions highly suspicious.

 

[Peter_J]

Then I have no clue what you are talking about. Can you clarify please?

I’m a little short on time, but here’s a very brief addendum that I hope will help. TrueLight gave an example, the point of which I’m not entirely clear on, but which by its very nature could (possibly) lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach to Eastern Catholicism. In your response to it, you mentioned "If the question is what makes someone a good “Eastern” Catholic … ". This, too, could (possibly) lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach to Eastern Catholicism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t want to get too much into this here, especially since I started a thread on the topic not so long ago, but in many conversations about Eastern Christianity, it is stated or assumed that one cannot be Eastern without being either Catholic or Orthodox. Some are even more restricitive, claiming that one cannot be Eastern without being Orthodox, period. Quite frankly, I find both of these positions highly suspicious.

Well you only have to look to history to find your answer. At the Great Schism every Eastern Church save for the Maronites were not in communion with Rome. These are the very Churches who have developed the Eastern praxis for 1000 years, and have developed it 1000 years further to where we are today. You can’t get more authentically Eastern than that. They are the genuine bearers of this tradition and if we want a barometer to know the authenticity of Eastern traditions, who else do we look to?

 

[jwinch2]

I’m a little short on time, but here’s a very brief addendum that I hope will help. TrueLight gave an example, the point of which I’m not entirely clear on, but which by its very nature could (possibly) lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach to Eastern Catholicism. In your response to it, you mentioned "If the question is what makes someone a good “Eastern” Catholic … ". This, too, could (possibly) lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach to Eastern Catholicism.

OK. The whole point of my comment was that, if we are going to make distinctions on what makes a person a good Catholic, Eastern or otherwise, that we should base such things on the teachings and praxis of the Particular Churches who are in communion with the Holy See. I would not claim to understand the distinctions between the Melkite, Maronite, and Ukrainian Catholic Churches for example, but I imagine that they exist. How this could possibly indicative of a one-size-fits-all approach, I do not see.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m a little short on time, but here’s a very brief addendum that I hope will help. TrueLight gave an example, the point of which I’m not entirely clear on, but which by its very nature could (possibly) lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach to Eastern Catholicism. In your response to it, you mentioned "If the question is what makes someone a good “Eastern” Catholic … ". This, too, could (possibly) lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach to Eastern Catholicism.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no “one-size-fits-all” conclusion. Being in communion with Rome means you have to accept Rome’s teaching. And this means some genuine Eastern beliefs and traditions will have to take a back seat. That is what Vatican I teaches and being in communion means we accept it fully without reservations. If the Pope says we stop using the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, we stop. If the Pope says we say it in Latin, we say it in Latin. We can protest and petition him to reconsider, but at the end of the day we owe him our obedience because this is what the communion entails. If we don’t believe that, then we are not in communion with him.

So if we want everything the Orthodox does and believes in, then we should become Orthodox. There is no other way around it. If we don’t mind Latinizations here and there, or that we life an authentically Western spirituality expressed in Eastern traditions, then we become Eastern Catholic. I think the line is drawn there.

 

[dvdjs]

If the Pope says we stop using the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, we stop. If the Pope says we say it in Latin, we say it in Latin.

Wouldn’t it be better to temper these ideas with a dose of reality?

So if we want everything the Orthodox does and believes in, then we should become Orthodox. There is no other way around it. If we don’t mind Latinizations here and there, or that we life an authentically Western spirituality expressed in Eastern traditions, then we become Eastern Catholic.

I If we are fixated on "Latinizations here and there. and conflate that with Western spirituality, the we are a bit disoriented. f we start with what “we want”, then we are lost.

 

[dvdjs]

Well you only have to look to history to find your answer. At the Great Schism every Eastern Church save for the Maronites were not in communion with Rome.

This idea is not correct.

These are the very Churches who have developed the Eastern praxis for 1000 years, and have developed it 1000 years further to where we are today. You can’t get more authentically Eastern than that. They are the genuine bearers of this tradition and if we want a barometer to know the authenticity of Eastern traditions, who else do we look to?

Please see my post to PR (#42). Interestingly, you leave the The Slavic churches out the mix as genuine bearers of the tradition. Who do we have, the Greeks and the E Orthodox minority of Christians in the Middle East?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wouldn’t it be better to temper these ideas with a dose of reality?

That is the reality. That the Pope has such supreme jurisdiction and authority in all aspects of the Catholic Church. We are in denial if we say that it is not the case. Vatican I says so. So what if the Pope has not done it in the past. With that reasoning then every other nation in the world should have nuclear weapons except for the US because nobody else has ever used nuclear weapons, only the US has. So we’re safe, right?

I If we are fixated on "Latinizations here and there. and conflate that with Western spirituality, the we are a bit disoriented. f we start with what “we want”, then we are lost.

It is not about wants, but what truth have we found. If we find that truth is an Eastern praxis without any Latinization, then it is what we should go for. Well, then yes, it is about wants. The wanting for truth. And what is bad about wanting the truth?

This idea is not correct.

Please feel free to correct it then.

Please see my post to PR (#42). Interestingly, you leave the The Slavic churches out the mix as genuine bearers of the tradition. Who do we have, the Greeks and the Orthodox minority of Christians in the Middle East?

The Slavs are with the Greeks. There was no Slavic Church in communion with Rome until the Union of Brest.

 

[dvdjs]

That is the reality.

There has been no effort that I know of to have Latin used or to suppress the Chrysostom DL in Byzantine churches.

It is not about wants, but what truth have we found. If we find that truth is an Eastern praxis without any Latinization, then it is what we should go for. Well, then yes, it is about wants. The wanting for truth. And what is bad about wanting the truth?

I don’t see the equation of praxis and truth. That is important to address before accepting the wisdom of a particular search for an idiosyncratic sense of truth.

 

[Peter_J]

The objection of the author to the catechism is particularly that it continues to teach that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is a valid church. The author believes that there should only be one particular church in the Ukraine: he states:“This document has become dated even before its publication because it is a determined witness of the anti-ecumenical reaction in the UGCC rather than a step forward toward the creation in Ukraine of one Particular Church.”
I believe that his statement is not ecumenical for it does not respect the UGCC as a Church. Ecumenical means (Merriam Webster):

Ecumenical
1: worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application 2a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches
2b : promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation

I can definitely see how people would be bothered by the push for “the creation in Ukraine of one Particular Church” – a kind of “reverse uniatism” you might say. But let’s not overstate the matter: it’s not saying that the UGCC isn’t a valid church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There has been no effort that I know of to have Latin used or to suppress the Chrysostom DL in Byzantine churches.

I’m not talking about that reality. I am talking about the reality that the Pope has such authority. Sure, he doesn’t use it today and it may not be this Pope, but the fact is such a Pope can and given there has been antiPopes in the past, there can be another one in the future.

I don’t see the equation of praxis and truth. That is important to address before accepting the wisdom of a particular search for an idiosyncratic sense of truth.

There is one truth, Jesus Christ. And the only way to find truth is through those who have known Him better than we do. So we go to the teachings of the Fathers and the Saints.

 

[TrueLight]

TrueLight, I’m afraid I don’t see the point of your example – unless you subscribe to some kind of one-size-fits-all approach.

Ok.

I

I have that impression sometimes as well. Thankfully, not always. There are several Eastern Catholics here on CAF who do not seem to have that attitude including the person who did the translation of the above review. As an example, on another thread when the discussion turned towards whether or not the UGCC Catechism would affirm papal infallibility this was his reply:

Peace of Christ,

That is reassuring.

 

[jwinch2]

That is reassuring.

I thought so as well…

 

[Vico]

I can definitely see how people would be bothered by the push for “the creation in Ukraine of one Particular Church” – a kind of “reverse uniatism” you might say. But let’s not overstate the matter: it’s not saying that the UGCC isn’t a valid church.

So then what do you make of this comment in the review? "The catechism’s authors loudly proclaim that the Kyivan Metropolitans, who were in union with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, were somehow in communion with Rome even after the rupture of communion between Constantinople and Rome, while the union of Brest was but an affirmation of this communion (between Rome and Kyiv – comp. 307). …

“In fact, it would have been entirely proper for the CUGCC to have acknowledged the error of the schism within the Ukrainian Church on the part of those bishops who created the union of Brest and who disregarded its foreseeable and sad aftermath for the unity of the Ukrainian Church. Instead, the catechism makes a failed attempt to proclaim the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church to be the “direct descendant of the Kyivan Metropolia in communion with the Roman Church” (307), thus affirming the UGCC’s pretensions with respect to being the inheritor of the rights of the pre-union Kyivan Church.”

… However, the fact that the Kyivan Church was Orthodox was somehow lost. This means that, logically, the true inheritors of the pre-union Kyivan Church could only be the Orthodox hierarchs. In addition, from the point of view of church law, it is clear that after the union of Brest the Sees of those bishops who went into the union became vacant, including the Kyivan Metropolitan See, which is why their replacement with new bishops was the legal right of the Orthodox Church."

 

[Peter_J]

I would say that’s going to upset some people.

So then what do you make of this comment in the review? "The catechism’s authors loudly proclaim that the Kyivan Metropolitans, who were in union with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, were somehow in communion with Rome even after the rupture of communion between Constantinople and Rome, while the union of Brest was but an affirmation of this communion (between Rome and Kyiv – comp. 307). …

“In fact, it would have been entirely proper for the CUGCC to have acknowledged the error of the schism within the Ukrainian Church on the part of those bishops who created the union of Brest and who disregarded its foreseeable and sad aftermath for the unity of the Ukrainian Church. Instead, the catechism makes a failed attempt to proclaim the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church to be the “direct descendant of the Kyivan Metropolia in communion with the Roman Church” (307), thus affirming the UGCC’s pretensions with respect to being the inheritor of the rights of the pre-union Kyivan Church.”

… However, the fact that the Kyivan Church was Orthodox was somehow lost. This means that, logically, the true inheritors of the pre-union Kyivan Church could only be the Orthodox hierarchs. In addition, from the point of view of church law, it is clear that after the union of Brest the Sees of those bishops who went into the union became vacant, including the Kyivan Metropolitan See, which is why their replacement with new bishops was the legal right of the Orthodox Church."