Do Melkite Catholics believe in the Filioque?

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Bishop John A. Elya, will answer your questions

They accept the filioque as all doctrines the pope teaches, because they are 100% in union with the pope.
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites

making them a hundred per cent Catholic
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-

What about indulgences, & legalism? or the concept of purification of the soul after death? Or development ?.
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/why-is-it-that-we-pray-for-the-dead-what-is-the-eastern-view-of-indulgences

excerpt from this last link (all emphasis mine)

I am often astonished at remarks that the legal nature of indulgences seem to prove that they are applicable only to the Latin Church and are thus foreign to our Eastern theology. Many people do not realize that the legal aspects of church life, including canon law, began in the East. The Emperor Justinian and the Byzantine court developed canons that are still the basis for many principles of law used in the church today.

[snip]

The idea of temporal punishment due to sin is not entirely foreign to our Eastern theology. In some Eastern cultures, the surviving family members of dead offer candy to passersby at a Memorial Service, especially on the Saturday of the Dead, praying that the person would offer forgiveness to the deceased for any wrongs, imagined or real. In the prayers of absolution said over the deceased, the Church prays for the dissolution of any bonds that would keep the deceased tied, in a temporal way, to the corpse or to an intermediate state of purification.

[snip]

Our Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome have experienced theological developments and growth. We, as we walk with the successor of Peter, are not bound to the forms of the ancient East in a slavish manner, but rather interpret our liturgy and forms of prayer through the eyes and insights of a church that is both alive and evolving. It is a grave error to keep ourselves blindly confined to the theological ideas of the first 10 centuries. My family has been Melkite Catholic for many generations. Are we to discard our Catholic beliefs because they find their origins in Catholic thought of the 20th century? We appreciate and value our heritage, but we are open to the development of new theological insights as they develop under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We are a living Church.

I mean no offense to His Grace, but Bishop John hardly speaks on behalf of the entire Melkite Church. In fact, he is one of only two bishops who refused to sign the famous Melkite declaration of Faith:

“I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches. I am in union with the Bishop of Rome as First Among Equals according to the limits recognized in the East during the First Millennium before the separation.”

Now I know that this statement is deliberately somewhat vague, but the fact that Bishop John refused to sign it should be indicative of his attitude in re the difference between Eastern and Western approaches to the Faith.

 

[steve_b]

I mean no offense to His Grace, but Bishop John hardly speaks on behalf of the entire Melkite Church. In fact, he is one of only two bishops who refused to sign the famous Melkite declaration of Faith:

Melkite declaration of Faith? What is it and why didn’t he sign? Does the "declaration " contradict what Bp John wrote in those links provided?

while he may not speak for the entire Melkite Church, he seems very confident in what he does say, when speaking for the following
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-many-churches-are-in-the-american-melkite-eparchy
P:

“I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches. I am in union with the Bishop of Rome as First Among Equals according to the limits recognized in the East during the First Millennium before the separation.”

the links provided, Bp John is very specific on what “union with the pope” means.
P:

Now I know that this statement is deliberately somewhat vague, but the fact that Bishop John refused to sign it should be indicative of his attitude in re the difference between Eastern and Western approaches to the Faith.

How does that effect canon law?

re: (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

Bp John says, If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Is that agreeable?

 

[Peter_J]

How does that effect canon law?

re: (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

** Bp John says, If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.
**
Is that agreeable?

Where did he say that?

 

[steve_b]

Where did he say that?

In this link which I gave previously.
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

*" If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church". *

As you can see it’s a direct quote from him Re: canon 43 in the Eastern Canons

 

[Peter_J]

I see.

 

[Hesychios]

re: (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

Bp John says, If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.

I am wondering if an Eastern Catholic can not subscribe to this canon, where does such a person fit in this picture … as an outsider looking in?

 

[Peter_J]

I am wondering if an Eastern Catholic can not subscribe to this canon, where does such a person fit in this picture … as an outsider looking in?

Well, I don’t know whether Bishop John ever answered that question or not. Frankly, just trying to figure out why he said “If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.” is a bit beyond me. The Catholic Church doesn’t subscribe to Branch Theory.

Then again, you do have to wonder why there’s such an incredible amount of interest in what Bishop John believes or doesn’t believe …

 

[Hesychios]

Then again, you do have to wonder why there’s such an incredible amount of interest in what Bishop John believes or doesn’t believe …

There isn’t, as far as I can tell.

But if we quote him enough in public spaces some day when we are long gone he may be thought of as one of the great doctors of the church, and have parishes named after him.

 

[Peter_J]

Then again, you do have to wonder why there’s such an incredible amount of interest in what Bishop John believes or doesn’t believe …

Well, in some places.

 

[steve_b]

I am wondering if an Eastern Catholic can not subscribe to this canon, where does such a person fit in this picture … as an outsider looking in?

Are you asking if an E Catholic would deny the canon, where would that person be? As Bp John said, they would not be in union with the pope, they would not be Catholic, they would be Othodox.

 

[steve_b]

Well, I don’t know whether Bishop John ever answered that question or not. Frankly, just trying to figure out why he said “If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.” is a bit beyond me. The Catholic Church doesn’t subscribe to Branch Theory.

Then again, you do have to wonder why there’s such an incredible amount of interest in what Bishop John believes or doesn’t believe …

When a Church is in full communion with the pope, they are Catholic. There is no branch theory there. I quoted Bp John because he is qualified to speak for the Eparchy of Newton.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are you asking if an E Catholic would deny the canon, where would that person be? As Bp John said, they would not be in union with the pope, they would not be Catholic, they would be Othodox.

So the only criterion to be Orthodox is not being in communion with Rome? Interesting idea there.

 

[steve_b]

So the only criterion to be Orthodox is not being in communion with Rome? Interesting idea there.

going back to the context, Bp John is making a distinction between Catholic or Orthodox

re: (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

Bp John says, If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Therefore, one can’t be called Catholic if they refuse to believe in that canon. They are Orthodox not Catholic. Again, keeping in mind, the context of Bp John’s quote

 

[jwinch2]

As a later Western theological development, that came about in response to legitimate theological and dogmatic problems in the West (the rise of certain heresies), the Melkites understand that the filioque is an acceptable Western theologoumena (basically theological speculation).

Interesting information. Which heresies led to the development of the Filioque?

Thanks,

 

[RyanBlack]

Interesting information. Which heresies led to the development of the Filioque?

Thanks,

The insertion of the filioque into the creed in Spain was, at least in part, a response to the ongoing threat of Arianism, which lingered in the West longer than in the East.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The insertion of the filioque into the creed in Spain was, at least in part, a response to the ongoing threat of Arianism, which lingered in the West longer than in the East.

You beat me to it! Thank you.

 

[jwinch2]

The insertion of the filioque into the creed in Spain was, at least in part, a response to the ongoing threat of Arianism, which lingered in the West longer than in the East.

Thanks!