Review of The New Ukrainian Catholic Catechism

[Vico]

I don’t recall that specific part. I’ll look at it again tomorrow.

Incidentally, you can count me one of the latter. I tend to think that the “one Ukrainian Church” proposal is a type of “reverse uniatism” (another topic I don’t want to get too deeply into here, since it was already the subject of a recent thread).

When you do, keep the following in mind: A Church sui iuris may be Patriarchial, Major Archepiscopal, Metropolitan, or Eparchal. Particularity lies in the eparchy of a Church sui iuris.

CCEO Canon 177

1. An eparchy is a portion of the people of God which is entrusted for pastoral care to a bishop with the cooperation of the presbyterate so that, adhering to its pastor and gathered by him in the Holy Spirit through the Gospel and the Eucharist, it constitutes a particular Church in which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and operative.
2. In the erection, modification, and suppression of eparchies within the territorial boundaries of a patriarchal Church, can. 85, 1 * is to be observed; in other cases the erection, modification and suppression of eparchies is solely within the competence of the Apostolic See.

• CCEO Canon 85

1. For a serious reason, with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and having consulted the Apostolic See, the patriarch can establish provinces and eparchies, modify their boundaries, unite, divide, suppress, and modify their hierarchical status and transfer the eparchial see.

Canon 27
A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.

 

[Peter_J]

Not a valid Orthodox particular church, nor autocephalous church (he does not mention automous *). He says the UGCC is not a particular church due to dependency on the Holy See. He shows misunderstanding because he does not use the term Church sui iuris from the CCEO which is used in that code for particular church."The catechism also classifies the Roman Church as being a Particular Church. This shows that the Roman Church is truly the sister of the UGCC, and equal in rights with her (comp. 305 and 307), and not her mother. Nonetheless, the CUGCC refuses to call matters by their proper names by avoiding the use of the term “autocephalous.” To this is added wishful thinking when it is affirmed that the “one and catholic Church exists in the Particular Churches and is of the Particular Churches” (17), because the Second Vatican Council the “ecclesia particularis” is, in fact, identical with the notion of an “eparchy/diocese” (See Footnote 3) and not with a true Particular Church, which does not have any rightful place in the Catholic Church, because the particular unions of bishops, for example, the Episcopal Conferences, possess a status that is entirely dependent on Rome (See Footnote 4)."

Granted that’s a pretty complex sentence; however, I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’ll be interested to see what others have to say about it.

 

[jwinch2]

Granted that’s a pretty complex sentence; however, I do not think it means what you think it means.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Couldn’t resist…

 

[Vico]

Granted that’s a pretty complex sentence; however, I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’ll be interested to see what others have to say about it.

It seems clear when he states that the UGCC is not a true Partiular Church “because the particular unions of bishops, … [are] entirely dependent on Rome”.

On thing that is certain, for the Catholic church the eparchy (or equivalent) is the atomic unit of a Church sui iuris. The faithful, enrolled in a Catholic Church sui iuris, become part of the visible Church of Christ.

The author of the review believes that the UGCC Particular Church is not a true Particular Church (autonomous). He does not define autonomous, but to compare properly the Church sui iuris is the unit to compare, that is the Metropolitan with synod. This is the structure of the Orthodox eparchies, that the bishops have authority in their eparchy and belong to a synod with a presiding bishop to deal with inter-eparchial issues.

 

[Peter_J]

It seems clear when he states that the UGCC is not a true Partiular Church “because the particular unions of bishops, … [are] entirely dependent on Rome”.

On thing that is certain, for the Catholic church the eparchy (or equivalent) is the atomic unit of a Church sui iuris. The faithful, enrolled in a Catholic Church sui iuris, become part of the visible Church of Christ.

The author of the review believes that the UGCC Particular Church is not a true Particular Church (autonomous). He does not define autonomous, but to compare properly the Church sui iuris is the unit to compare, that is the Metropolitan with synod. This is the structure of the Orthodox eparchies, that the bishops have authority in their eparchy and belong to a synod with a presiding bishop to deal with inter-eparchial issues.

The thing is, when he brings up the idea that “… the “ecclesia particularis” is, in fact, identical with the notion of an “eparchy/diocese””, I believe that his intention is to complain about this idea, not to agree with it. If so, the rest of that paragraph needs to be interpreted in that light.

 

[Vico]

The thing is, when he brings up the idea that “… the “ecclesia particularis” is, in fact, identical with the notion of an “eparchy/diocese””, I believe that his intention is to complain about this idea, not to agree with it. If so, the rest of that paragraph needs to be interpreted in that light.

Sure he is not in agreement, but does not mention Church sui iuris, which would help greatly. He states these ideas:1) “a step toward Orthodox ecclesiology is seen in the presented notion of the Particular Church (ukr. pomisna Cerkva) as such and which is created from the Local Churches (comp. 291).”

1. “The CUGCC makes a general attempt to base the idea of particularity on the foundation of inculturation (301), and not in terms of the canonical tradition of the Eastern Church (34th Apostolic Canon), as this is done by the Orthodox Churches. … The Particularity of the UGCC is not derived from local Ukrainian identity”.
2. “the CUGCC refuses to call matters by their proper names by avoiding the use of the term “autocephalous.” To this is added wishful thinking when it is affirmed that the “one and catholic Church exists in the Particular Churches and is of the Particular Churches””
   He relates that the UGCC as not an Orthodox styled Particular Church because it is bound by canon law approved by the Holy See, i.e., is not “autonomous”. We know that the Church sui iuris (of its own law) has particular law which is determined based upon what kind of structure it has:
   CCEO Canon 242
   The eparchial bishop is to communicate the text of the laws, declarations and decrees which have been decided upon at the eparchial assembly to the authority which the particular law of his Church sui iuris has determined.

CCEO Canon 167/2. The metropolitan will notify the Apostolic See as soon as possible of the laws and norms enacted by the council of hierarchs; nor can laws and norms be validly promulgated before the metropolitan has written notification from the Apostolic See of the reception of the acts of the council; the metropolitan is also to notify the Apostolic See of other actions of the council of hierarchs.

CCEO Canon 152
What is stated in common law concerning patriarchal Churches or patriarchs is understood to be applicable to major archiepiscopal Churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter.

CCEO Canon 110

1. The synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church is exclusively competent to make laws for the entire patriarchal Church which obtain force according to the norm of can. 150, 2 and 3.
2. The synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church is the tribunal in the patriarchal Church according to the norm of can. 1062.
3. The synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church conducts the election of the patriarch, bishops and candidates for offices mentioned in can. 149.
4. The synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church is not competent for administrative actions unless the patriarch determines otherwise for certain actions or common law reserves some actions to the synod, with due regard for the Canons which require the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church.

 

[Peter_J]

He relates that the UGCC as not an Orthodox styled Particular Church because it is bound by canon law approved by the Holy See, i.e., is not “autonomous”.

I don’t even feel a need for the “because” and subsequent words in that sentence. Just look at what UGCC stands for, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

(I’m about to retire for the night, but I’ll be back tomorrow.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

According to the Union of Brest, the Metropolia of Kyiv and Halych should be able to name her own bishops without needing approval from Rome. We all know that is not the case today.

 

[Vico]

According to the Union of Brest, the Metropolia of Kyiv and Halych should be able to name her own bishops without needing approval from Rome. We all know that is not the case today.

Articles 10, 11, Union of Brest:

• That the metropolitanate, the episcopate, and other ecclesiastical dignities shall be conferred on no one except the Rus’ people or Greeks, who must be of our religion. And since our Cannons require that the Metropolitan, the Bishops, and so on, first elected by the clergy, must be worthy people, we ask the King’s Grace that the election be free, leaving intact the authority of the King’s Grace to appoint the one whom he pleases. This means that as soon as someone has died we should elect four candidates, and the King’s Grace will freely chose whom he wishes from among the four. This is necessary, especially so that the persons named to such positions will be worthy and educated, for the King’s Grace, who is not of the same religion, cannot know who is worthy of this, and thus it has happened that such uninstructed people were appointed that they were scarcely literate. If the King’s Grace should wish to appoint a layman to these spiritual posts, the appointee must receive Holy Orders within no more than three months under pain of losing appointment, according to the Constitution of the Parliament of Grondo and the Articles of King Sigmund Augustus of blessed memory, approved by the present King’s Grace, for at the moment there are some who hold certain spiritual appointments in their hands but do not receive Holy Orders even for years, justifying themselves with some sort of royal “exemptions”. We ask that in future this should not be.
• That our Bishops should not send to Rome for the sacrae (permission to consecrate), but, if the King’s Grace names someone to a bishopric, that according to the old custom the Archbishop-Metropolitan should have the duty and the right to ordain him. The Metropolitan himself, before entering upon the office of metropolitan, should send the sacrae to the Pope. Then, after he has received the sacrae from Rome, let the bishops ordain him, at least two of them, according to their custom. If a bishop is elected Metropolitain, let him not send for the sacrae, because he already has the episcopal cheirotonia; he may take an oath of obedience to the Supreme Pontiff in the presence of the Archbishop of Gniezno (who on that occasion will not be functioning as Archbishop, but as Primate of Poland).

 

[Vico]

I don’t even feel a need for the “because” and subsequent words in that sentence. Just look at what UGCC stands for, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

(I’m about to retire for the night, but I’ll be back tomorrow.)

Here is the terminology used in the Latin Canon law:

CIC Can. 111
§1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement, however, the child is enrolled in the ritual Church to which the father belongs.
§2. Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely choose to be baptized in the Latin Church or in another ritual Church sui iuris; in that case, the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

One is enrolled in a Church sui iuris (which is recognized as such by the Holy See) and only by that enrollment is part of the visible Church of Christ. There is no enrollment “at large”. A Church, such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, is in full communion with Rome with its own applicable laws. Each of the 22 eastern Catholic churches, it is a church in particular and not the same as the Latin Church.

 

[5Loaves]

We must admit, however, that there are certain issues that simply can’t be reconciled. Take divorce and remarriage. The Orthodox believe that the Church can dissolve a valid sacramental marriage and that the faithful can then enter into a second valid sacramental marriage; the Catholic Church teaches that a valid sacramental marriage can only be dissolved by death. Both cannot be right.

I don’t think I saw anyone respond to this. East and West are quite different on this. If a person marries a second time in the Orthodox Church (and should be likewise in an ECC) there is no crowning and the service is penitential in nature. "The service makes very clear that this is a condescension to sin and human weakness…‘better to marry than to burn’… "

…In Orthodoxy, marriage is for eternity, it is not “until death do us part”. A married couple are “soul-mates” assisting each other towards theosis… When an Orthodox Christian who has been previously married (this includes widows/widowers as well as those who have divorced) is permitted to remarry, the ritual is radically different than the ritual for first marriages. There are no crowns, no songs of joy, no being led around the altar. Instead, it is a penitential service…

This is quite different from a Catholic of the Latin Rite who if widowed or having obtained a decree of nullity can proceed to have a full blown wedding in the Church with all the bells and whistles. This cannot happen in an Orthodox situation and should not happen either for an Eastern Catholic. The second marriage is only a concession to allow taking a spouse to assist in one’s theosis.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

That’s what I see on this forum for the most part. You do have a few posters who sort of “defend” Catholicism, but most to me seem to be “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”.

I know a couple of trads who were raised Eastern Catholics (not converts). They love both rites. One women in particular attends daily Liturgy, but she also attends our TLM on some Latin feast days. She asks the intercession of both Eastern and Western saints. When it comes to major feasts, if both the Latin and Eastern observe during the same period, she observes the Eastern feasts/fasts. But otherwise she enjoys both the Latin rite and Ukrainian Byzantine rite. She does say the Filioque. She lovessssssssss her Rosary.

She identifies herself as a Catholic, first and foremost. If you get to know her and especially if she is talking about mass, she’ll mention she is an Eastern Catholic.

In my opinion, she is a perfect example of an Eastern Catholic.

Sometimes, I get the impression (and some have pretty much said it), that some Eastern Catholics are only biding their time until they can return back to their mother churches.

I hope this attitude is not the norm.

Speaking perhaps more of my Ruthenian brothers and sisters, most do not even speak of such matters. They are concerned about their own relationship with God, and with the life of their own Particular Church. They remain faithfully Catholic, yet truly cherish their Eastern traditions.

Yet many are aware that not all is as it was “in the Old Country”, nor thus as it should be. If they were to be classified as OICWR, as seems to be interpretted here, then one should logically ask why they do not simply pick up and go to the local Orthodox Church (in some neighborhoods, right across the street or next door).

Generalization is always a dangerous thing, and in fairness, I do not think we should label all those of Eastern heritage as being fundamentally disobedient to the Catholic Church, simply because they are heartbroken that they have been urged to return to their authentic roots, yet still have restrictions (e.g. married priesthood outside the “canonical territories”) at the same time that prevent it.

I would humbly submit, if you really wanted to gauge one’s true orientation (are you really Catholic or Orthodox, based on current norms), ask the following:

“If the Catholic and Orthodox Churches reunited tomorrow, would you become Orthodox or remain in your established Eastern Catholic Church?”

Of course, that question assumes an ecclesiastical model where the EC Churches survive the reunion in their present form, but it is revealing with that assumption taken as a given.

I have asked that question of those who express the most stringent of Orthodox positions while declaring themselves Eastern Catholic, and the answers are always surprising, yet largely consistent in theme.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

This is quite different from a Catholic of the Latin Rite who if widowed or having obtained a decree of nullity can proceed to have a full blown wedding in the Church with all the bells and whistles. This cannot happen in an Orthodox situation and should not happen either for an Eastern Catholic. The second marriage is only a concession to allow taking a spouse to assist in one’s theosis.

Thanks for this post, 5L. I have yet to have an experience in my own Ruthenian Church where this is put to test, so to speak. Why? I have never known a divorced Ruthenian, nor a widow/widower who has remarried.

I don’t know why that is the case, but I’d like to believe that it is because we fundamentally believe that marriage is truly a permanent bond - it’s somehow engrained in our spiritual DNA.

My brother just got married (to a young lady raised Southern Baptist) in our Church this past weekend (praise be to God, as we waited 42 yrs for this day!). While the vows included in our ritual include the “traditional” expression “until death do us part”, the celebrating priest (a semi-retired Irish Catholic bi-ritual) did a marvelous job in his homily explaining this Eastern view of marriage. Most of the bride’s family commented (most approvingly) on this afterward.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is quite different from a Catholic of the Latin Rite who if widowed or having obtained a decree of nullity can proceed to have a full blown wedding in the Church with all the bells and whistles. This cannot happen in an Orthodox situation and should not happen either for an Eastern Catholic. The second marriage is only a concession to allow taking a spouse to assist in one’s theosis.

Well, depends on the Church. In our case (UGCC) I’ve learned our wedding has Roman theology with Byzantine traditions.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t think I saw anyone respond to this. East and West are quite different on this. If a person marries a second time in the Orthodox Church (and should be likewise in an ECC) there is no crowning and the service is penitential in nature. "The service makes very clear that this is a condescension to sin and human weakness…‘better to marry than to burn’… "

This is quite different from a Catholic of the Latin Rite who if widowed or having obtained a decree of nullity can proceed to have a full blown wedding in the Church with all the bells and whistles. This cannot happen in an Orthodox situation and should not happen either for an Eastern Catholic. The second marriage is only a concession to allow taking a spouse to assist in one’s theosis.

This subject has been discussed often here; it has been made clear that these ostensibly distinctive features are really are more history laced with some mythos than contemporary reality. It is no suprise, however, that the linked source would be out of the loop.

I had previously given a link to a good thread on ByzCath that features much commentary by an Orthodox priest (Serbian then ROCOR) who has actually given second marriages.

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/333262/1

He dispels the notions, popular in threads here, that remarriage in the Orthodox church is penitential, without crowning, natural vs sacramental, difficult to obtain, etc. It’s all greatly changed over the years, but he discredits Patristic theologians who point this out.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well, now back to our regularly scheduled programming (the OP) …

I’m still eager to see and read the English translation, yet have gotten a flavor for the work both from critiques such as this and from unofficially translated excerpts elsewhere.

The critiques I have seen thus far were either “neutral” at best to “very negative”, with none being positive. While the reasons vary, they are consistent in opining that it is much like the existing CCC, only with Eastern “twists”.

While its seems that many had hoped for a more “Orthodox-friendly” text, I never really had such expectations. Rather, I did hope that some of the more “controversial” Catholic dogma (Papal supremacy and infallibility; the Immaculate Conception; etc.) could be addressed from the point of view of Eastern Catholicism, presumably giving some explanation as to how such was “reconcilied” with Eastern thought by the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The parenthetic inclusion of the Filioque, as reported, appears somewhat unfortunate if indeed unaccompanied by an express, catechetical “reconciliation” of the Filioque to the theology agreed and expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. That said, I’ll wait to see the official English text in entirety.

I did have some hope that this could be a model text for Eastern Catholicism in general, and we’ll have to see how the other Particular Churches react over time.