Do Melkites believe in the Filioque?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
malphono said:
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. 🙂
Click to expand...
Wow! I’m a little embarrassed that I got that so wrong. It should be Maximos V Hakim, who attended Vatican II. 😛
 
twf said:
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.
Click to expand...
Catholic canon law doesn’t allow it. It says it is only allowed with the permission of ones own bishop. “Many Orthodox ‘online’” are only following the official stance of their Church which says that this is not ok.
 
GaryTaylor said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood my point. I didn’t mean to say that the Melkites do not understand Papal infallibility or jurisdiction. I meant that rather they understand it differently from how the majority of Latins (wrongly) understand it. Again, I point you to any of Marduk’s excellent commentaries on the role of the Papacy. He has studied the topic extensively and, in my opinion, not only presents the dogmas as they are understood in the East, but as they were intended to be understood at the time of their definition. His division of understandings into “high,” “low,” and “absolutist” Petrine views is very helpful. Incidentally, I’d venture that most Latins (wrongly) maintain an “absolutist” Petrine view.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I think you misunderstood my point. I didn’t mean to say that the Melkites do not understand Papal infallibility or jurisdiction. I meant that rather they understand it differently from how the majority of Latins (wrongly) understand it. Again, I point you to any of Marduk’s excellent commentaries on the role of the Papacy. He has studied the topic extensively and, in my opinion, not only presents the dogmas as they are understood in the East, but as they were intended to be understood at the time of their definition. His division of understandings into “high,” “low,” and “absolutist” Petrine views is very helpful. Incidentally, I’d venture that most Latins (wrongly) maintain an “absolutist” Petrine view.
Click to expand...
Sorry I think you may have also missed my point. My point is, you can accept what you do not know, and you can misunderstand what you think you do know, and thus promote a false understanding incorrectly understood? Imho this a self evident fact.

That’s the point, which I added the creed, trinity and incarnation as examples, and the misunderstanding is self evident here daily. Nevertheless I suggested this to further address that belief and conviction with accent may be well intact, but its very likely the individual still didn’t ascend to the teaching just “accepted” it as truth. This is also understood and suggested above with Petrine views. So too then, it stands to reason it occurs universally in the Church.

Thus I proposed the same paradigm as you suggested with the Latin Church. Which btw I wholeheartedly agree with. However, what I now further disagree with are a couple points which lead to my initial point.

Re-read your statement above, when your statement addressed “they understand it differently from how the majority of Latins (wrongly) understand it.”

Follow? they the Melkites are the example used here [no offense meant]. The suggestion is the Church as a whole understands it differently, “they” indicates them as a collective whole.

However, they are individuals who I politely suggest arrive at the same point you arrive at with the Latin Church when “they” is then reduced to “most” in comparison. And along with what I mentioned with accent/ascend.

I also disagree with the term “most”. I don’t believe its fact. Just as don’t I believe “they” all believe the same as stated.

My point is to accent is one thing, and to ascend to a teaching is another, this occurs universally.

Again sorry about any misunderstanding, 🙂 Oh and I have spoke with Marduk about this. My point with him remains valid. The paradigm suggested can only relate to the primacy. The simple fact is Latin Rite Catholics believe many different ideals within each paradigm. Lastly that its proved “wrong” is a personal opinion to which from what I see the jury is still out. That said, I agree with him about the high view. I can’t say there is headway made. I would like to think so as I agree there have been very good treads. I just don’t see where Absolute Traditionalist are well represented on that point, and since it was never my intention to represent them, then its hard to conclude how they faired. These souls believe many things including the Latin Rite is heretical which leads to other areas of Traditional Catholic’s, the complexity of the EF OF mass and so forth.

And btw I don’t mean to sound “relative” here, I just think this is a much more complex issue than suggested. The problem is you won’t find any one of those three “views” in Catholic dogma or doctrine. These are personal understandings in which they are just that in all the Church’s. Would I be correct to state the ROC has a mostly “low” petrine view? That may be plausible, but its taking the liberty to assume in what I don’t in fact know. What would I mean by mostly? 90%, 75% or 51%?

Lumen Gentium

“But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.”

What view is the above??
 
Nine_Two said:
Catholic canon law doesn’t allow it. It says it is only allowed with the permission of ones own bishop. “Many Orthodox ‘online’” are only following the official stance of their Church which says that this is not ok.
Click to expand...
CCEO Canon 6713. Likewise Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to Christian faithful of Eastern Churches, who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask for them on their own and are properly disposed.

This holds also for the Christian faithful of other Churches, who according to the judgment of the Apostolic See, are in the same condition as the Eastern Churches as far as the sacraments are concerned.
  1. For the cases in 2, 3 and 4, norms of particular law are to be enacted only after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community concerned.
 
Vico said:
CCEO Canon 6713. Likewise Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to Christian faithful of Eastern Churches, who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask for them on their own and are properly disposed.

This holds also for the Christian faithful of other Churches, who according to the judgment of the Apostolic See, are in the same condition as the Eastern Churches as far as the sacraments are concerned.
  1. For the cases in 2, 3 and 4, norms of particular law are to be enacted only after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community concerned.
Click to expand...
Right. But it doesn’t state what Nine_Two claims it states
 
tdgesq said:
Right. But it doesn’t state what Nine_Two claims it states
Click to expand...
Nine_Two posted that: “… 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.”
 
Vico said:
Nine_Two posted that: “… 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.”
Click to expand...
That was actually twf who said that, and I agree with him. I think we are confusing posters. My point is that I don’t think Catholic Canon Law requires consent from an EO communicant’s bishop prior to receiving, as was asserted by Nine_Two earlier.
 
tdgesq said:
That was actually twf who said that, and I agree with him. I think we are confusing posters. My point is that I don’t think Catholic Canon Law requires consent from an EO communicant’s bishop prior to receiving, as was asserted by Nine_Two earlier.
Click to expand...
More correctly, Canon law doesn’t require asking on an individual basis, but if a standing policy is put in force, it should be done only after consulting the others.

The examples of this are the pastoral agreement for the Assyrian and Chaldean churches, and the Syrian Catholic/Syrian Orthodox.
 
tdgesq said:
That was actually twf who said that, and I agree with him. I think we are confusing posters. My point is that I don’t think Catholic Canon Law requires consent from an EO communicant’s bishop prior to receiving, as was asserted by Nine_Two earlier.
Click to expand...
Thank you for eliminating the confusion. I see what Nine_Two Posted (below). There are two parts, the Catholic (red) and the Orthodox (blue):Catholic canon law doesn’t allow it. It says it is only allowed with the permission of ones own bishop. “Many Orthodox ‘online’” are only following the official stance of their Church which says that this is not ok. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11864113&postcount=43

I see it is allowed by the Catholic Church to the Orthodox “if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed”. Also see:

DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM (1993)125. Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and the anointing of the sick to members of the Eastern Churches, who ask for these sacraments of their own free will and are properly disposed.In these particular cases also, due consideration should be given to the discipline of the Eastern Churches for their own faithful and any suggestion of proselytism should be avoided. 129

129 Cf. CIC, can. 844, 3 and cf. n. 106 above.

An answer from OCA is:
“Orthodox Christians are not permitted to receive Communion in non-Orthodox communities, including the Roman Catholic.”
oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/communion-in-roman-catholic-church***
​
 
Wandile said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where and when, exactly, did the Orthodox Church reject the Zoghby initiative? For that matter, where and when did the Roman church definitively reject it (as in, condemn it in an “ecumenical” council or by an “infallible” papal pronouncement? If you want to say that it has never been generally accepted by either the Orthodox or Roman episcopacie, that would be an accurate statement.
 
mardukm said:
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
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the meaning of “the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son, equally” is pretty plain to me, and doesn’t change with either an “eastern” or a “western” interpretation. Likewise with “Papal definitions made ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals are irreformable and binding on the Church in and of themselves and not by consent of the Church”.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
Sorry, but the meaning of “the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son, equally” is pretty plain to me, and doesn’t change with either an “eastern” or a “western” interpretation. Likewise with “Papal definitions made ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals are irreformable and binding on the Church in and of themselves and not by consent of the Church”.
Click to expand...
Hmmm … I’m guessing that "mardukm locuta, causa finite est" wouldn’t work on you … but anyhow, if I might “trot out” the ever popular question, how many ex cathedra statements have there been?
 
Peter_J said:
Hmmm … I’m guessing that "mardukm locuta, causa finite est" wouldn’t work on you … but anyhow, if I might “trot out” the ever popular question, how many ex cathedra statements have there been?
Click to expand...
Is there a prize for the right answer? 😃 (I’ll say…two—ex cathedra statements, that is.)
 
Peter_J said:
Hmmm … I’m guessing that "mardukm locuta, causa finite est" wouldn’t work on you … but anyhow, if I might “trot out” the ever popular question, how many ex cathedra statements have there been?
Click to expand...
I don;t know. I don’t know many Roman Catholics that do either. The usual stock answer is “two” but that is clearly wrong. That is a problem in and of itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top