P
Peter_J
Guest
Fr Robert Hart would agree with you.
However (not that I don’t respect him or you) I use them differently. 
- Status
However (not that I don’t respect him or you) I use them differently.
V
Vico
Guest
The eastern Catholic churches do not say that any of the dogmas of faith of the Catholic Church are false even though there is a different tradition and expression of their own faith traditions. For example Purgatory.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?
CCEO Canon 1436 is** loud!:bigyikes:**:§ 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.
§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Yes, he was. And, for what it’s worth, the current bishop for the Eparchy of Newton, Bishop Nicholas Samra, is a HUGE supporter of the Zoghby Initiative.
Which brings me to a point. The problem with quoting Bishop John is that his thoughts do not necessarily reflect what is held by the rest of the Melkite hierarchy as a whole. One only need read/listen to Bishop Samra, His Beatitude Patriarch Gregorios III, the writings of Archbishop Zoghby, the writings of Archbishop Raya, etc., etc., etc. to get a sense of what the larger number of Melkite hierarchy hold.
In general the filioque is viewed as not heretic, but is not emphasized and certainly not recited in the Creed. It is recognized as a Latin innovation (in the no pejorative sense) that was meant to deal with a specifically Latin problem, and so is not seen as part of our patrimony as Melkites.
Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are accepted, but are not understood the way that the vast majority of Latins (wrongly) understand it. Marduk’s explanations that he’s given in detail elsewhere are wonderful explanations of how they ought to be understood. Incidentally I’d venture that the CCC also contains a wonderful (and challenging) explanation of what these dogmas actually mean. And, as always, Archbishop Raya has a beautiful explanation in his book The Face of God in which he quotes Patriarch Maximos IV (Hachim) extensively. Definitely worth checking out.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You can accept what you do not know, I’m sure it occurs daily in the East and West Church. Should we require members of the Church’s for example to completely understand the Incarnation, Trinity and philosophical/theological understanding of the Sacraments, we would not have the result of the participation we in fact do east/west on a catechism level.
Yet these too are required in accent not because you know, but because you believe. Yet we are also to ascend to the teaching so we do “know”.
In other words either you believe and/or know and remain in the Church, or you come to know and reject the teaching, thus no longer remain in the Church by your own device, not the Church.
So the short of the point is either you believe and do know and remain in the Church, or you believe and do not know and remain in the Church.
I fail to see the point.
W
Wandile
Guest
I really do not agree with the zoghby initiative. I think its very shaky ecumenism. Bishop John is a staunch catholic and I really like his rigorist views.Yes, he was. And, for what it’s worth, the current bishop for the Eparchy of Newton, Bishop Nicholas Samra, is a HUGE supporter of the Zoghby Initiative.
Which brings me to a point. The problem with quoting Bishop John is that his thoughts do not necessarily reflect what is held by the rest of the Melkite hierarchy as a whole. One only need read/listen to Bishop Samra, His Beatitude Patriarch Gregorios III, the writings of Archbishop Zoghby, the writings of Archbishop Raya, etc., etc., etc. to get a sense of what the larger number of Melkite hierarchy hold.
In general the filioque is viewed as not heretic, but is not emphasized and certainly not recited in the Creed. It is recognized as a Latin innovation (in the no pejorative sense) that was meant to deal with a specifically Latin problem, and so is not seen as part of our patrimony as Melkites.
Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are accepted, but are not understood the way that the vast majority of Latins (wrongly) understand it. Marduk’s explanations that he’s given in detail elsewhere are wonderful explanations of how they ought to be understood. Incidentally I’d venture that the CCC also contains a wonderful (and challenging) explanation of what these dogmas actually mean. And, as always, Archbishop Raya has a beautiful explanation in his book The Face of God in which he quotes Patriarch Maximos IV (Hachim) extensively. Definitely worth checking out.
I’m curious what is the Melkite view on how Papal Infallibility and universal jurisdiction are supposed to be exercised in the Catholic Church?
W
Wandile
Guest
In February 1995, Zoghby declared a two-point Profession of Faith:
1.I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2.I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
The first point is controversial as it is a direct contradiction to the catholic faith. The Mellite synod approved this profession. Please can it be explained what both points mean?
It should be notes that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches rejected this initiative.
1.I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2.I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
The first point is controversial as it is a direct contradiction to the catholic faith. The Mellite synod approved this profession. Please can it be explained what both points mean?
It should be notes that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches rejected this initiative.
M
malphono
Guest
I’m not getting into this thread except to ask a clarification. there were two Maximos in immediate succession: Maximos IV Sayegh succeeded by Maximos V Hakim.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Me either, I just remember the point Cav made below a week of so ago, which is/was a valid point, yet I too thought it needed clarification.
Peace
P
Peter_J
Guest
Fair enough. To be honest, if you had said that you did agree with the zoghby initiative, I would have to say “Hmmm … how do you reconcile that with your overall (very Latin) thinking?”
I don’t think I would say “very” but I agree that it is somewhat shaky ecumenism. I think our Melkite bishops are well aware that it means going somewhat out-on-a-limb.
P
Peter_J
Guest
No offense of course.
M
MichaelinMD
Guest
Am I mistaken in thinking that the Zoghby initiative is ***NOT ***official teaching, or policy, or discipline, or doctrine, or dogma of the Catholic Church?
T
twf
Guest
Catholics consider Orthodoxy so close to Catholicism, at least as far as the fundamental substance of faith goes, that we invite them to our Eucharistic table. Thus from a Catholic perspective, there is very little in Orthodoxy which we would consider “heretical”. We cannot accept the notion of second sacramental marriages, before the first spouse has died, which we view as a Byzantine novelty, and we are concerned with the acceptance of artificial birth control in some Orthodox quarters, but for the most part their faith is our faith, even if expressed and lived differently. For this reason, as a Latin, I take little to no issue with the first Zoghby statement if understood correctly. I also take no issue with the second statement ("first among the bishops according to the limitations…) as long as it is understood that many contemporary Orthodox express a “low Petrine” view which goes far beyond the limitations of the first millennium. It is a matter of how you interpret these statements.
As a Latin I fully accept the teachings of the First and Second Vatican Councils, but I tend to lean towards Marduk’s “high Petrine” interpretation and reject the “sola papa” errors of many of my Latin brothers and sisters.
As a Latin I fully accept the teachings of the First and Second Vatican Councils, but I tend to lean towards Marduk’s “high Petrine” interpretation and reject the “sola papa” errors of many of my Latin brothers and sisters.
W
Wandile
Guest
None taken. In fact you got my thinking correctNo offense of course.
Staunch Latin
W
Wandile
Guest
Nope you are not. You correct in your thinking.
1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
I recently met with a Melkite Greek Catholic priest and in our conversation I asked him what Orthodox beliefs I would have to change to become Catholic & he answered, “None. Melkites are Orthodox Catholic. Orthodox in belief & Catholic in that we are in union with the Pope of Rome.”
W
Wandile
Guest
That’s the problem I have with the whole Orthodox in belief thing… The Orthodox do not believe in Papal infallibility, Universal Jurisdiction or Immaculate Conception… They consider such ideas heretical. This clearly not the same faith
1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
What does CCEO stand for?
P
Peter_J
Guest
Yes, that’s well put. And you can see, then, why we Melkites don’t seek to convert you.
P
Peter_J
Guest
To paraphrase my earlier post, I’d be surprised if you said otherwise.
Hold on there, Orthodox don’t necessarily call Catholics “heretical” (and vice versa).
T
twf
Guest
On this forum and elsewhere online some Orthodox are very adamant that we Latins are completely out to lunch and profess numerous heresies. In real life this isn’t always the caseTo paraphrase my earlier post, I’d be surprised if you said otherwise.
Hold on there, Orthodox don’t necessarily call Catholics “heretical” (and vice versa).
. I attended divine liturgy at a Melkite mission in Vancouver a few times, and the priest was quite clear that a number of Orthodox Christians regularly communed there. They were Greek Orthodox of the Antiochian tradition and chose to commune with the Melkite Catholics rather than the nearby Orthodox parishes of the Slavic tradition. Many Orthodox “online” (such as on this board) would strongly condemn this practice, but Catholic canon law allows it- thus the priest had no objections.I profess and accept all the dogmas of the Catholic Church, but I do not believe that my Latin faith, properly expressed and understood, is at odd with Orthodoxy - with the exception of a few key issues that need to be resolved.
- Status