Do Melkites believe in the Filioque?

[Wandile]

I ask because Many Melkites including Patriarch Gregory III Laham state they hold the same faith as the Orthodox and only believe in 7 ecumenical councils. The Filioque was defined at later ecumenical councils and we all know the Orthodox do not believe in the filioque. So do the Melkites believe in it?

Do they also believe in Papal Infallibility and universal jurisdiction?

 

[JamesTheJust]

In answering these sorts of questions, one has to be careful with regards to language, as confusion can easily result. Basically, the Filioque clause means something different in Latin than it does in most non-Latin languages, so the ECCs have been allowed to omit it from their creed. For further explanation, see here:
catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.php

And yes, the ECCs believe in universal jurisdiction and all that.

 

[Nine_Two]

This came up in a recent discussion on the non-Catholic religions board.

Yes, the Filioque is defined as doctrine by the Council of Florence and therefore must be believed by all Catholics - whether or not it is said in the creed.

 

[Wandile]

In answering these sorts of questions, one has to be careful with regards to language, as confusion can easily result. Basically, the Filioque clause means something different in Latin than it does in most non-Latin languages, so the ECCs have been allowed to omit it from their creed. For further explanation, see here:
catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.php

And yes, the ECCs believe in universal jurisdiction and all that.

I know all Catholics including eastern Catholics are supposed to in the filioque but eastern Catholics are allowed to omit it from the creed. I ask not on the basis of the union agreement but on the actions of Melkites today. Because some Melkites say some disturbing stuff that would make you question if they are catholic. So that is why I am asking.

How can you claim to have the exact same faith as the Orthodox and be catholic?

 

[Wandile]

In answering these sorts of questions, one has to be careful with regards to language, as confusion can easily result. Basically, the Filioque clause means something different in Latin than it does in most non-Latin languages, so the ECCs have been allowed to omit it from their creed. For further explanation, see here:
catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.php

And yes, the ECCs believe in universal jurisdiction and all that.

This came up in a recent discussion on the non-Catholic religions board.

Yes, the Filioque is defined as doctrine by the Council of Florence and therefore must be believed by all Catholics - whether or not it is said in the creed.

Yes I am actually the person who verified this statement made by cavaradossi in that particular thread.

My question comes from the perspective of the actions of the Melkites rather than what they said upon union with rome

How can they claim to believe in the exact same faith as the Orthodox? The Orthodox don’t believe in the filioque clause. This would give the idea that they somehow might not believe in filioque or else what do they mean by “we believe in the same faith as the Orthodox but are in communion with Rome”?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Eastern Catholics are not required to recite the filioque, but don’t think it’s heretical for Latins to do so. Whether or not ECs think Latins should - opinions vary. Orthodox opinions vary from ‘its heretical’ to ‘it is imprudent’ to ‘it’s theological speculation’, and everything in between.

 

[Nine_Two]

Eastern Catholics are not required to recite the filioque, but don’t think it’s heretical for Latins to do so. Whether or not ECs think Latins should - opinions vary. Orthodox opinions vary from ‘its heretical’ to ‘it is imprudent’ to ‘it’s theological speculation’, and everything in between.

I’ve never heard the filioque decried on the grounds of being theological speculation.

Our theology is very clear on the matter. It can be interpreted (at least in Latin) in an orthodox manner, it can also be interpreted in a heretical manner. Those who say it is “imprudent” are generally giving the Latins the benefit of the doubt, while those who say it is heretical are not.

 

[Peter_J]

I ask because Many Melkites including Patriarch Gregory III Laham state they hold the same faith as the Orthodox and only believe in 7 ecumenical councils. The Filioque was defined at later ecumenical councils and we all know the Orthodox do not believe in the filioque. So do the Melkites believe in it?

Do they also believe in Papal Infallibility and universal jurisdiction?

I would advise caution, quite generally, about questions of the form “Do blanks believe in blank?” (Well, unless we were talking about a sci-fi world wherein everyone has a chip in their head.) However, I believe we can at least say this much:

• Melkites count 7 ecumenical councils.
• Rome however, counts 14 more, and from Rome’s point of view teachings like the filioque, Papal Infallibility and universal jurisdiction are not optional.

 

[Vico]

I ask because Many Melkites including Patriarch Gregory III Laham state they hold the same faith as the Orthodox and only believe in 7 ecumenical councils. The Filioque was defined at later ecumenical councils and we all know the Orthodox do not believe in the filioque. So do the Melkites believe in it?

Do they also believe in Papal Infallibility and universal jurisdiction?

Melkite Bishop John Adel Elya writes:
When we declared our union with Rome – in consistency with Apostolic tradition interrupted somehow by historical circumstances – we accepted the Catholic faith in its entirety. We do recognize the authority of the Pope of Rome, including universal jurisdiction and infallibility for whatever concerns faith and morals. It is true that the Western Theologians themselves have their own debates concerning these points; so we should not be “more papist that the Pope;” but Catholic is Catholic and truth is truth. We cannot pose as “Orthodox united to Rome” only for what suits us. I do mean it when we pray every day, at the Divine Liturgy, for “unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit.”

melkite.org/bishop-john

 

[mardukm]

I ask because Many Melkites including Patriarch Gregory III Laham state they hold the same faith as the Orthodox and only believe in 7 ecumenical councils. The Filioque was defined at later ecumenical councils and we all know the Orthodox do not believe in the filioque. So do the Melkites believe in it?

The question is a bit vague, because it might be misinterpreted to mean that the Melkites (or any Eastern Catholic) is required to understand the clause “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father” in exactly the same way as the Latins. In truth, Westerns and Easterns do not have the same understanding of that clause, though both their respective understandings are (in the context of their own, respective theologies) perfectly orthodox. The problem comes when one or the other attempts to impose their theological presuppositions on the other party with respect to that clause.

I think that instead of the question as you pose it, a more appropriate one would be “Do Melkites believe the filioque is orthodox in the context of Latin theology?”

Do they also believe in Papal Infallibility and universal jurisdiction?

From what I’ve read of comments from their hierarchs, the Melkite understanding of those two dogmas is HIgh Petrine, not Absolutist Petrine. It is very important to make that distinction, especially with regards to the Melkites.

Blessings

 

[twf]

The question is a bit vague, because it might be misinterpreted to mean that the Melkites (or any Eastern Catholic) is required to understand the clause “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father” in exactly the same way as the Latins. In truth, Westerns and Easterns do not have the same understanding of that clause, though both their respective understandings are (in the context of their own, respective theologies) perfectly orthodox. The problem comes when one or the other attempts to impose their theological presuppositions on the other party with respect to that clause.

I think that instead of the question as you pose it, a more appropriate one would be “Do Melkites believe the filioque is orthodox in the context of Latin theology?”

From what I’ve read of comments from their hierarchs, the Melkite understanding of those two dogmas is HIgh Petrine, not Absolutist Petrine. It is very important to make that distinction, especially with regards to the Melkites.

Blessings

Well said brother. The Melkites recognize the primacy of Rome, but they are also very conscious of the fact that their own patriarch is a true successor of St. Peter and exercises true primacy within the Melkite Church. His Beatitude, Patriarch Gregory III Laham, has this to say:

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, “servatis servandis”, in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy. (vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_20_x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b10_02.html)

 

[Peter_J]

Melkite Bishop John Adel Elya writes:

Yes, Bishop Elya says a lot of things as a matter of fact.

(I’m not implying that you weren’t aware of that, but I think it needed to be said anyhow.)

 

[MichaelinMD]

Yes,*** Bishop Elya says a lot of things as a matter of fact.***

(I’m not implying that you weren’t aware of that, but I think it needed to be said anyhow.)

Lots of bishops say lots of things. Is there a meaning in the highlighted part of your post that we might be missing?

 

[Wandile]

Yes, Bishop Elya says a lot of things as a matter of fact.

(I’m not implying that you weren’t aware of that, but I think it needed to be said anyhow.)

Wasn’t he one of the two bishops who opposed the Zoghby initiative?

 

[Peter_J]

Wasn’t he one of the two bishops who opposed the Zoghby initiative?

True, and he’s also said that Rome’s list of (21) ecumenical councils is correct … although I think a bigger claim to fame is the number of times he’s quoted on CAF. (I kid, obviously, but seriously he is quoted a ton of times on this forum.)

 

[Peter_J]

Lots of bishops say lots of things. Is there a meaning in the highlighted part of your post that we might be missing?

Perhaps you should ask Vico whether there’s a significance (that we might be missing) to quoting Bishop Elya. Heck, I’m sure I could find *many *quotes from Latin Catholic bishops that don’t sound very Latin Catholic.

 

[MichaelinMD]

Perhaps you should ask Vico whether there’s a significance (that we might be missing) to quoting Bishop Elya. Heck, I’m sure I could find *many *quotes from Latin Catholic bishops that don’t sound very Latin Catholic.

Okay…Consider yourself asked, Vico .

And, PeterJ, if I were going to take what you’ve written in any way at all, I’m thinking I’d have to take it that you were implying, both in this post and your previous one, that Bp. Elya was saying and has said things that in your opinion don’t sound very Melkite Catholic. Or…have I missed something?

 

[Wandile]

True, and he’s also said that Rome’s list of (21) ecumenical councils is correct … although I think a bigger claim to fame is the number of times he’s quoted on CAF. (I kid, obviously, but seriously he is quoted a ton of times on this forum.)

I like him. He also had a problem with claiming to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. He said to be Orthodox is not to be catholic. What is you view Peter? I hope other Melkites can contribute to this thread

 

[Peter_J]

I like him. He also had a problem with claiming to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. **He said to be Orthodox is not to be catholic. **What is you view Peter? I hope other Melkites can contribute to this thread

catholic or Catholic?

P.S. in any case, I certainly wouldn’t want him claiming to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

 

[Wandile]

catholic or Catholic?

P.S. in any case, I certainly wouldn’t want him claiming to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

Catholic and catholic are one and the same. Since we are the trur church, when we call ourselves the catholic church, we attach its meaning of Whole and universal too. Nevermind that capital letters are a modern invention.

Thanks for the answer