review of The New Ukrainian Catholic Catechism

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Vico

Of course. I mean with regard to validity of the UGCC. The statement "which is why their replacement with new bishops was the legal right of the Orthodox Church." says the UGCC has no right which means is not a valid Church.

I don't see that. I see him saying that, b/c certain Orthodox bishops switched to Catholicism, the Orthodox had every right to appoint replacements. (Conversely, if a Catholic bishop(s) switched to Orthodoxy, we would have every right to appoint replacements.)

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Vico

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."

I've also heard this view a bishop. That the Ukrainian Church was "dragged" into the Great Schism and they didn't really choose to be in schism from Rome. 1054 is about 100 years since Rus became Christian, so whatever led to it they were not part of.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I've also heard this view a bishop. That the Ukrainian Church was "dragged" into the Great Schism and they didn't really choose to be in schism from Rome. 1054 is about 100 years since Rus became Christian, so whatever led to it they were not part of.

One could also then, say the Poland was dragged into schism from Constantinople.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

One could also then, say the Poland was dragged into schism from Constantinople.

I wonder what Poles have to say to it? But I guess today they are fiercely Roman Catholics anyway.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I wonder what Poles have to say to it? But I guess today they are fiercely Roman Catholics anyway.

The church east and west has become ... er ... Pole-arized.

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Good question. But again are annulments compatible with the non-legalistic view of the East on marriage? So if an Eastern Catholic Church accepts annulments, then they are Latinized.

I don't know where you are getting your information, but annulments are not a "Latin thing." It goes back to the early Church. There are many cases in which the early Church determined that "a marriage never took place."

Here are some instances:
1) Consanguinity;
2) prior ordination;
3) prior marriage to a soldier who was presumed dead but discovered to be alive (yes, despite modern EO claims, there are early canons from Eastern sources on the impossibility of a second marriage if a spouse is still alive).
4) lack of willful consent.

The idea that annulments are merely a Latin thing is not true to the facts of Sacred Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

[Peter J]

Due to time constraints, I didn't get around to responding to this yesterday:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

And that seems to be where the problem lies. The Orthodox do not reject the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but of course they want it in the context of the First Millennium. Many Eastern Catholics believe it this way as well. The problem here is that is not what the Bishop of Rome is saying, that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. We all get this quips about, "yeah, we'll study that and do that," but the fact is what the Catholic Church teaches is in Vatican I. Are we in communion with the Pope if we do not accept Vatican I fully and without reservations? At least the Orthodox says it clearly and plainly, unless the Pope himself is exercising his primacy according to what it was in the First Millennium, and clearly teaches this is the case, they are not in communion with him. I'm starting to feel like the SSPX, and I do not like the SSPX. We claim to be Catholics yet we do not fully accept what the Church teaches. We say we are in communion with the Pope yet put a lot of qualifiers. I love the Pope and I love the Papacy. But if we are denying everything that he teaches today, we're not being truthful to ourselves and to the Pope. And love shouldn't lie.

If someone in full communion with the Pope doesn't agree with all the required teachings (and, yes, I realize there will probably be some who don't like the fact that I put that in hypothetical terms) it doesn't necessarily follow that he/she is being dishonest.

Just consider, as an example, a Catholic who comes out and says "I believe Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction is false, but I don't consider it to be a heresy, so I'm not breaking off communion with the Pope." That, surely, is not dishonest. (Although of course there's always the possibility that the Pope will say "Well then, I'm going to break off communion with you." Communion is a two-way street.)

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Peter J

I don't see that. I see him saying that, b/c certain Orthodox bishops switched to Catholicism, the Orthodox had every right to appoint replacements. (Conversely, if a Catholic bishop(s) switched to Orthodoxy, we would have every right to appoint replacements.)

He certainly said that. When I said that he holds that the UGCC is not valid it is using the definition (from Merriam-Webster) applied to Orthodoxy:

valid
1: having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>

The author clearly states:

"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."

He says that the UGCC does not have the inherited rights, which means that they have no legal efficacy as the Kyivan Church, they are not valid Orthodox.

And he believes that there should only be one Ukrainian Church, from the five eastern churches in the Ukraine of the Constantinopolian Tradition (one Catholic and four Orthodox particular churches):

1 Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of Kyiv-Halyc of the Ukrainians (from Kyiv)
2 UOC-KP - Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus’ - Ukraine Filaret (from Russian Orthodox Church schism)
3 UOC-MP - Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine Volodymyr (UAOC-KP -> Russian Orthodox Church)
4 UAOC - Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine Mefodiy (from Ecumenical Patriarch, 1924, restored 1990)
5 UAOC Canonical - Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus-Ukraine Moses (from the Polish Orthodox Church)

Certainly there is a Catholic desire for union of all Orthodox Churches with Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches. The respect for and tolerance of the various Apostolic churches in the Ukraine would be ecumenical on the part of the author.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by mardukm

Dear brother ConstantineTG,


I don't know where you are getting your information, but annulments are not a "Latin thing." It goes back to the early Church. There are many cases in which the early Church determined that "a marriage never took place."

Here are some instances:
1) Consanguinity;
2) prior ordination;
3) prior marriage to a soldier who was presumed dead but discovered to be alive (yes, despite modern EO claims, there are early canons from Eastern sources on the impossibility of a second marriage if a spouse is still alive).
4) lack of willful consent.

The idea that annulments are merely a Latin thing is not true to the facts of Sacred Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

Oh, sure, I'm not saying that annulments is an exclusively Latin thing. There are things that can invalidate any Sacrament. We can find out later that the bread we used at Divine Liturgy wasn't made from wheat, for example. But the way the Latin Church uses annulments nowadays, and if Eastern Churches uses annulments the same way, well, what more can I say about it?

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Oh, sure, I'm not saying that annulments is an exclusively Latin thing. There are things that can invalidate any Sacrament. We can find out later that the bread we used at Divine Liturgy wasn't made from wheat, for example. But the way the Latin Church uses annulments nowadays, and if Eastern Churches uses annulments the same way, well, what more can I say about it?

In fact, your earlier post was not as nuanced and the reply was spot on. Now the question is: what are the facts on annulments in ECCs? What facts do you have? You eschew and influence of the Latin church, but that cuts both ways. On remarriage in the church after divorce, we hold to the early practice of not allowing it.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Vico

He certainly said that. When I said that he holds that the UGCC is not valid it is using the definition (from Merriam-Webster) applied to Orthodoxy:

valid
1: having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>

The author clearly states:

"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."

Right, he's saying that the UGCC isn't that church. But, presumably, he regards it as a valid church.

Originally Posted by Vico

He says that the UGCC does not have the inherited rights, which means that they have no legal efficacy as the Kyivan Church, they are not valid Orthodox.

And he believes that there should only be one Ukrainian Church, from the five eastern churches in the Ukraine of the Constantinopolian Tradition (one Catholic and four Orthodox particular churches):

1 Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of Kyiv-Halyc of the Ukrainians (from Kyiv)
2 UOC-KP - Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus’ - Ukraine Filaret (from Russian Orthodox Church schism)
3 UOC-MP - Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine Volodymyr (UAOC-KP -> Russian Orthodox Church)
4 UAOC - Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine Mefodiy (from Ecumenical Patriarch, 1924, restored 1990)
5 UAOC Canonical - Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus-Ukraine Moses (from the Polish Orthodox Church)

I'd say that will some people very happy; others ... not so much.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

In fact, your earlier post was not as nuanced and the reply was spot on. Now the question is: what are the facts on annulments in ECCs? What facts do you have? You eschew and influence of the Latin church, but that cuts both ways. On remarriage in the church after divorce, we hold to the early practice of not allowing it.

It all evolves on the theology of marriage as the West understands it and how it differs from the Eastern teaching on it. Well, at least the Orthodox teaching to it. I mean, if the Eastern Catholic Church understands marriage the same exact way the Latin Church does, then yes annulments do fit into it just fine. But of course now you have the question, why is an Eastern Church following Western theology on marriage.

Originally Posted by Peter J

Due to time constraints, I didn't get around to responding to this yesterday:

If someone in full communion with the Pope doesn't agree with all the required teachings (and, yes, I realize there will probably be some who don't like the fact that I put that in hypothetical terms) it doesn't necessarily follow that he/she is being dishonest.

Just consider, as an example, a Catholic who comes out and says "I believe Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction is false, but I don't consider it to be a heresy, so I'm not breaking off communion with the Pope." That, surely, is not dishonest. (Although of course there's always the possibility that the Pope will say "Well then, I'm going to break off communion with you." Communion is a two-way street.)

Of course you are required to. If you do not agree on his teachings, then why are you in communion with him? Isn't it why in the Latin teaching we are to be in a state of grace before receiving Communion? Because we are coming into union with an all perfect Christ, and we are stained with sin, which is why as St. Paul says, we drink judgement onto ourselves. Because sin is the rejection of God and then we try to come into communion with him while our actions say we reject Him. Communion of Churches and with lay people and their bishop works the same way. If the Pope says he is this and you object to it, then you are not really in communion with him. Especially that Papal Supremacy is a dogma, it is de fide, required belief.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Peter J

[/indent]Right, he's saying that the UGCC isn't that church. But, presumably, he regards it as a valid church.

I'd say that will some people very happy; others ... not so much.

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)."

* 1) Autocephalous Orthodox Churches are Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, Czech Lands and Slovakia, OCA, and 2) Autonomous Orthodox Churches are Sinai, Finland, Estonia, Japan, China, Ukraine.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

It all evolves on the theology of marriage as the West understands it and how it differs from the Eastern teaching on it. Well, at least the Orthodox teaching to it. I mean, if the Eastern Catholic Church understands marriage the same exact way the Latin Church does, then yes annulments do fit into it just fine. But of course now you have the question, why is an Eastern Church following Western theology on marriage.

We have already established that both the East and the West have an understanding of nullity. What has not been established is whether the ECCs are as liberal in the application of the idea as is the RCC in teh US, notwithstanding the request.

We thus do not have the question about the ECCs following Western theology of marriage, as nullity is not exclusively a Western concept, and it has not been established that ECCs follow a liberal tack on annulments. We do agree, I think, that the ECCs follow, like the RCC, a discipline on divorce that is more rigorous and more characteristic of the early church than the EOCs. Not sure that that practice could in a menaingful sense be though of as raising a question of Western theology in an Eastern church.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I've also heard this view a bishop. That the Ukrainian Church was "dragged" into the Great Schism and they didn't really choose to be in schism from Rome. 1054 is about 100 years since Rus became Christian, so whatever led to it they were not part of.

One view I read is:

Not all was smooth going for the Principality of Kyiv in the years after Vladimir's conversion. Two of Vladimir's sons, Boris and Gleb, were martyred in the first years of the 11th century. Years later the two princes were canonized. There are churches and monastaries dedicated to them all over Russia and the Ukraine. After the Great Schism of 1054, some churches of the Ukraine stayed with the Byzantine style of church worship, yet retained some links to the Pope in Rome. These churches are the ancestors of today's Ukrainian Catholic Church.

http://www.newarkhistory.com/stjohnukrainian.html