Melkites and their beliefs about Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wandile

Guest
I’ve noticed a weird trens on the internet where some Melkite catholics disagree with certain dogmas of the Catholic Church and the number of ecumenical councils. So I just wanted some clarification
  1. Do Melkites believe the Bishop of Rome has Universal Jurisdiction?
  2. Do Melkites believe in Papal Infallibility and Immaculate Conception?
  3. Do Melkites believe there are 21 ecumenical councils?
Thanks:)
 
You might listen to the interviews with Father Abbot Nicholas of Holy Resurrection Romanian Catholic Monastery Eastern Catholic Theology PART 1 and Part 2.

If you click on “Show More” you can see all the questions Catherina Alexander asks Fr Nicholas, including:
4. Do Eastern and Oriental Catholics have to affirm dogmas proclaimed by Rome?
5. Do Eastern and Oriental Catholics have to accept all Roman Catholic teachings and theology?
6. May Eastern and Oriental Catholics reject dogmas proclaimed by Rome as being outside their theological patrimony?
7. May they reject doctrine and dogmas proclaimed by Rome as incorrect or heretical, like papal supremacy?
 
Dear brother Wandile,

Forgive me for intruding (since I am not Melkite), but I wanted to offer some answers based on my own discussions with Eastern Catholics in general.
  1. Do Melkites believe the Bishop of Rome has Universal Jurisdiction?
Not in the way Absolutist Petrine advocates claim - i.e., that the Pope has the authority to impede the authority of an orthodox Catholic bishop in that bishop’s own diocese. The Pope has proper authority in a matter that pertains to the Church universal, but he does not have proper authority in a matter that pertains only to a particular local Church (i.e., diocese), except his own.
  1. Do Melkites believe in Papal Infallibility
Not in the way Absolutist Petrine advocates claim - i.e., that the Pope has a UNILATERAL authority to proclaim a dogma.
and Immaculate Conception?
Not in the way it is theologically expressed by the Latin Catholic Church.
  1. Do Melkites believe there are 21 ecumenical councils?
Belief in the number 21 is not required for non-Latin Catholics. It’s starnge to think that it is since some of those Councils were purely disciplinary in nature, treating only of matters pertaining to the Latin Church. Only belief in dogma (as distinct from doctrinal expression) is required.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
1. Do Melkites believe the Bishop of Rome has Universal Jurisdiction?

Like all of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Melkite Church is governed by the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, rather than the 1983 Code of Canon Law that governs the Latin Church. Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches affirms the universal jurisdiction of the Pope:

“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.” melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

***2. Do Melkites believe in Papal Infallibility…? ***

The Melkite Patriarch Gregory II, who reigned from 1864-1897, was present at Vatican I, and signed on to Pastor Aeternus, tthe document that spells out the Church’s teachings on Papal Infallibility and universal jurisdiction. melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-melkite-view-of-the-post-schism-ecumenical-councils

…and Immaculate Conception?***

The Immaculate Conception has been defined as dogma, so to disagree with it would essentially be saying that the Roman Church is heretical. The Melkite Church’s continued communion with the Roman Church demonstrates that they do not view the Roman Church as heretical. While all Catholics must accept dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception, they do NOT have to use a Latin theological approach to understand/describe that dogma. The Roman and Byzantine Traditions involve different theological approaches to various doctrines of the faith (for example, scholasticism and Thomism have become prominent in the Roman Tradition), but they affirm the same doctrines and beliefs. Fr., Thomas Loya does a good job of explaining this: catholicradiointernational.com/LightoftheEast/mp3/lote113010.php

3. Do Melkites believe there are 21 ecumenical councils?

The post-schism ecumenical councils were fully ecumenical, just as the pre-schism ones were. Bishop John Elya does a good job explaining this: melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-melkite-view-of-the-post-schism-ecumenical-councils
 
Dear brother Wandile,

Forgive me for intruding (since I am not Melkite), but I wanted to offer some answers based on my own discussions with Eastern Catholics in general.

Not in the way Absolutist Petrine advocates claim - i.e., that the Pope has the authority to impede the authority of an orthodox Catholic bishop in that bishop’s own diocese. The Pope has proper authority in a matter that pertains to the Church universal, but he does not have proper authority in a matter that pertains only to a particular local Church (i.e., diocese), except his own.

Not in the way Absolutist Petrine advocates claim - i.e., that the Pope has a UNILATERAL authority to proclaim a dogma.

Not in the way it is theologically expressed by the Latin Catholic Church.

Belief in the number 21 is not required for non-Latin Catholics. It’s starnge to think that it is since some of those Councils were purely disciplinary in nature, treating only of matters pertaining to the Latin Church. Only belief in dogma (as distinct from doctrinal expression) is required.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
Can you expand a little more on your responses to number 2 and number 3? Can you explain what they do believe about both of those dogmas?
 
Dear brother Jeffgo,
***2. Do Melkites believe in Papal Infallibility…? ***

The Melkite Patriarch Gregory II, who reigned from 1864-1897, was present at Vatican I, and signed on to Pastor Aeternus, tthe document that spells out the Church’s teachings on Papal Infallibility and universal jurisdiction.
The full story: Patriarch Yussef was on the Committee De postulatis, which was responsible for sifting through (i.e., accepting/discarding) all the proposals made by the bishops, which would thence be forwarded to the Committee De fide. At one of their meetings, the Patriarch expressed his personal belief in “papal” infallibility, but warned that a definition would estrange the Orthodox Church even more. However, he did approve of the infallibility being brought before the Council. The lone voice against the matter being brought before the Council was Abp. Rauscher.

During the general congregation, Patriarch Yussef argued against the definition based on his concerns about its repercussions for unity with the Orthodox, but not on any theological grounds. He asserted that the Decree of Florence should be re-enacted and nothing more.

There were two final voting Sessions of the General Congregation - July 13 and July 18. July 13 was a preliminary vote, wherein bishops submitted final emendations. At this time, as far as the non-Latins were concerned, there were 7, including Patriarch Jussef, and they all voted non placet. It seems the Patriarch absented himself from the final voting. At this final voting on July 18, two of the non-Latins voted placet. Dom Cuthbert Butler does not name them, but states one was Armenian (there is some uncertainty from Butler’s account on the number of non-Latin bishops, particularly from Hungary - in one place, Butler states some of them were of the Byzantine Romanian Rite, but he does not include them among the non-Latin bishops in his lists, but simply counts them as “Hungarians”).

3. Do Melkites believe there are 21 ecumenical councils?

The post-schism ecumenical councils were fully ecumenical, just as the pre-schism ones were. Bishop John Elya does a good job explaining this: melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-melkite-view-of-the-post-schism-ecumenical-councils

Concisely, Bp. Elya does not claim that all the extra Councils are ecumenical, but only that what is doctrine and part of the deposit of faith is to be believed (basically what I had explained).

Blessings,
Marduk
 
**Original Sin, the Consequences of the Fall, and the Immaculate Conception
**
In the Byzantine East, grace is the uncreated Energies of God (there are no created graces in our theology).

The consequences of the Fall is the separation of soul and body with the soul being placed in hades. The Mother of God did not give into temptation just as Christ did not. In the East, we do not teach that man cannot have grace because of the fall, therefore, we have no need to teach the immaculate conception.

The East teaches consequences of the Fall is the separation of soul and body with the soul being placed in hades. The West teaches that those in a state of Original Sin lack sanctifying grace.

Christ was fully man. He voluntarily submitted to having his soul separated from his body and his soul sent to hades since that is what happens to man and he was (and is) a man. Christ was made like us in all things except for sin. The Mother of God was subject to the same consequences of the Fall as her Son, Christ, was.

We do not teach that losing God’s grace is a part of the consequences of the Fall. Therefore, we cannot use the Latin defined, teaching of the Immaculate Conception because it is foreign to the theological language of the East. The Mother of God was born with all of the consequences of the Fall and was full of God’s grace at the same time. She chose out of her free will to never sin.

Here is the Byzantine view presented by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky in his book, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:
According to the Roman teaching, the burden of the sin of our first ancestors consists in the removal from mankind of a supernatural gift of grace. But here there arose a theological question: if mankind had been deprived of the gifts of grace, then how is one to understand the words of the Archangel addressed to Mary: “Rejoice, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art thou among women . . . Thou hast found grace with God?” One could only conclude that the Most Holy Virgin Mary had been removed from the general law of the “deprivation of grace” and of the guilt of the sin of Adam. And since her life was holy from her birth, consequently she received, in the form of an exception, a supernatural gift, a grace of sanctity, even before her birth, that is, at her conception. Such a deduction was made by the Latin theologians. They called this removal a “privilege” of the Mother of God One must note that the acknowledgement of this dogma was preceded in the West by a long period of theological dispute, which lasted from the 12th century, when this teaching appeared, until the 17th century, when it was spread by Jesuits in the Roman Catholic world.

…]

On the one hand, we see that God did not deprive mankind, even after its fall, of His grace-giving gifts, as for example, the words of the 50th Psalm indicate: “Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me… With Thy governing Spirit establish me;” or the words of Psalm 70: “On Thee have I been made fast from the womb; from my mother’s womb Thou art my protector.”

On the other hand, in accordance with the teaching of Sacred Scripture, in Adam all mankind tasted the forbidden fruit. Only the God-man Christ begins with Himself the new mankind, freed by Him from the sin of Adam. Therefore, He is called the “Firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29), that is: the First in the new human race; He is the “new Adam.” The Most Holy Virgin was born as subject to the sin of Adam together with all mankind, and with him she shared the need for redemption (the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs, Par. 6). The pure and immaculate life of the Virgin Mary up to the Annunciation by the Archangel, her freedom from personal sins, was the fruit of the union of her spiritual labor upon herself and the abundance of grace that was poured out upon her. “Thou hast found grace with God,” the Archangel said to her in his greeting: “thou hast found,” that is, attained, acquired, earned. The Most Holy Virgin Mary was prepared by the best part of mankind as a worthy vessel for the descent of God theWord to earth The coming down of the Holy Spirit (“the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee”) totally sanctified the womb of the Virgin Mary for the reception of God the Word.

Read more: intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/__P1N.HTM

St John Chrysostom says:
[Romans 5] Ver. 18. “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”
And he insists again upon it, saying,
Ver. 19. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.
What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offence of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word “sinners” mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam’s death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large.

Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.xii.html]

The East and the West have different theological language, terminology, and patrimony. 🙂

CONTINUED (below):
 
CONTINUED:
St Cyril speaking on the consequences of the Fall and of Christ’s Incarnation:
Therefore we say that, since from the transgression of Adam human nature suffered corruption and since our intellect within us is tyrannized by the pleasures of the flesh or by the inborn motions of the flesh, it became necessary for the salvation of us who are upon the earth that the Word of God be made man in order that he might make his own the flesh of man although it was subject to corruption and sick with the love of pleasure. Since he is life and life-giver, he would destroy the corruption in the flesh and rebuke its inborn motions, plainly those which tend toward love of pleasure. For thus it was possible that the sin in our flesh be killed.

We recalled also that the blessed Paul called this inborn motion in us the “law of sin.” Wherefore since human flesh became the Word’s own, the subjection to corruption has come to an end, and since as God, he who made it his own and proclaimed it as his own “did not know sin,” as I said, he also put an end to the sickness of loving pleasure. And the only begotten Word of God has not corrected this for himself, for he is what he always is, but obviously for us. For even if we have been subject to evil from the transgression of Adam, by all means there will come upon us also the good things of Christ, which are immortality and the death of sin.
  • St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 45:9
The East and the West have different theological language, terminology, and patrimony. 🙂
 
Mardukm, thank you for elaborating on the Melkite Patriarch’s role in the First Vatican Council. I would like to read more on it; would you happen to know where I can read more about the topic?
 
Dear brother Jeffgo,

My info on V1 (and the info on Patriarch Jussef) comes from:

Dom Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council: 1869 - 1870, The Newman Press.

There are several editions. The one I have is abridged. The non-abridged version might have more info on the matter than what I have. A few years ago, I did a search for the book online, and there are some for sale for about $50. I got mine at a library sale for 50 cents (divine providence?:)).

Blessings,
Marduk
Mardukm, thank you for elaborating on the Melkite Patriarch’s role in the First Vatican Council. I would like to read more on it; would you happen to know where I can read more about the topic?
 
I’ve noticed a weird trens on the internet where some Melkite catholics disagree with certain dogmas of the Catholic Church and the number of ecumenical councils. So I just wanted some clarification
  1. Do Melkites believe the Bishop of Rome has Universal Jurisdiction?
  2. Do Melkites believe in Papal Infallibility and Immaculate Conception?
  3. Do Melkites believe there are 21 ecumenical councils?
Thanks:)
Hi Wandile. To take the last question first, Melkites believe that there have been 7 ecumenical councils.

The other two questions aren’t quite so easy. Ideally, being in full communion should mean agreement on doctrine. It doesn’t always work out that way in practice, but that’s the ideal.
 
Hi Wandile. To take the last question first, Melkites believe that there have been 7 ecumenical councils.

The other two questions aren’t quite so easy. Ideally, being in full communion should mean agreement on doctrine. It doesn’t always work out that way in practice, but that’s the ideal.
Only seven? How so? Why aren’t the others ecumenical?
🙂
 
Hi Wandile. To take the last question first, Melkites believe that there have been 7 ecumenical councils.

The other two questions aren’t quite so easy. Ideally, being in full communion should mean agreement on doctrine. It doesn’t always work out that way in practice, but that’s the ideal.
Not even Vatican 2, with attendance by many Eastern Catholic bishops as well as its Decree on the Catholic Oriental Churches?
 
Not even Vatican 2, with attendance by many Eastern Catholic bishops as well as its Decree on the Catholic Oriental Churches?
This Q and A seems to be a popular thing to cite (possibly you’ve seen it before) …

*8. How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
A. Seven Ecumenical Councils
*

But anyhow, keep in mind that there are fewer than 20 million Eastern Catholics (I’m counting Oriental Catholics as well as Greek Catholics in that figure) in the world. It’s hard to imagine fooling yourselves into thinking that our presence at a council would make it an Ecumenical Council.
 
This Q and A seems to be a popular thing to cite (possibly you’ve seen it before) …

*8. How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
A. Seven Ecumenical Councils
*

But anyhow, keep in mind that there are fewer than 20 million Eastern Catholics (I’m counting Oriental Catholics as well as Greek Catholics in that figure) in the world. It’s hard to imagine fooling yourselves into thinking that our presence at a council would make it an Ecumenical Council.
But a councils ecumenical nature is not determined by how many bishops from each church are present but whether the teachings of such a council are true and binding on all the church.

This is what the subsequent 14 councils are and are such ecumenical. That’s why I struggle to understand how some… Some… Melkites say there are only 7 ecumenical councils

Could you please explain,why you believe there are only seven and not 21?
 
But a councils ecumenical nature is not determined by how many bishops from each church are present but whether the teachings of such a council are true and binding on all the church.

This is what the subsequent 14 councils are and are such ecumenical.
I’m curious: Do you have any explanation for why eight (8) councils were added to the “official” list of ecumenical councils, in one fell swoop, in the mid-16th century?
That’s why I struggle to understand how some… Some… Melkites say there are only 7 ecumenical councils

Could you please explain,why you believe there are only seven and not 21?
Well, I don’t have a definite answer to that. I think we see the “burden of proof” as resting with those who say that a certain council is an ecumenical council. Also, you might consult the aforementioned link, but I wouldn’t take that as an official explanation.
 
Peter J;11401763 said:

an ecumenical council. Also, you might consult the aforementioned link, but I wouldn’t take that as an official explanation.

Sorry Peter, it does seem mighty strange to me. In the first place, if you are part of the Catholic Church, wouldn’t the official Church list be the default? I can understand a non-Catholic demanding that Catholics provide proof that there is more than seven but a Catholic disproving the default should be providing proof of the contrary. It seems a bit like an American asking for proof why he should recognise the second senator from his state: He should be providing arguments against the default situation.

Is this an official Melkite position? I doubt whether Aganian (OK, he was Armenian) and Maximos would consider that they were non-participants in an Ecumenical council considering how strenously they argued their case. Maximos, in particular, strongly supported the use of the vernacular in the liturgy for the whole church (and this was largely a Latin thing as Easterners don’t have a vernacular problem, mostly) while opposing latinisation of Catholicism. If he didn’t accept the council, he wouldn’t have accepted the cardinalate, a symbol of the Latin Church, during the council itself, would he?

Or is this a case of Easterners asserting their independance (for which you have my full support) by trying to be as different from the Latins as is possible?
 
Sorry Peter, it does seem mighty strange to me.
Well I guess that’s okay: what you’re saying seems mighty strange to me too. 🙂 (But of course I’m just one of many EC posters … who knows, maybe some of the others have a more positive view of your ideas.)
Is this an official Melkite position? I doubt whether Aganian (OK, he was Armenian) and Maximos would consider that they were non-participants in an Ecumenical council considering how strenously they argued their case.
“non-participants in an Ecumenical council”? Perhaps you meant to say “*participants *in an non-Ecumenical council”?
 
Btw, Wandile and jimkhong, don’t feel obliged to answer this but I’ll ask it for the sake of completeness: Aside from the number-of-Ecumenical-Councils question, how many *ex cathedra *statements have there been?
 
Don’t know where you are coming with that question but I will bite anyway in the interest of scholasticism. I have tried to find the answer recently and could not come up with a defnitive list: I guess this could be one area Latins are like Easterners in not defining it :D.

But there is an interesting list of 7 researched and complied by Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment; [70]
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

There is apparently a list of 11 in L’Osservatore Romano in 1998 but I have yet to track it down. Quite exciting really to have something so fundamentally Latin but not defined.

If you are implying similarities as the list of ex cathedra statements is not defined, then the list of Ecumenical councils is clearly defined. I do sympathise with Easterners’ views that most of the mediaval councils are probably patriarchal councils as they deal only with Latin disciplinary or papal (OK, Western patriarchate) legitimacy issues. Still, I struggle to understand why Maximos would consider Vatican II where he participated (very energetically and with valuable (name removed by moderator)uts, IMHO) is not an Ecumenical council.

1 Do you have any reference where Maximos or any Melkite Synod said so?
2 Are Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World and Decree on the Catholic Oriental Churches not accepted by Melkites?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top