Melkites and those easterners who reject infallibility of rome

[linate]

isn’t the melkites known for rejecting the infallibility of rome?
and aren’t some other eastern catholics?

what does the catholic church say about that?

i read someone once say it’s a model for how a relationship with the orthodox could be. that is, there’s no condemnation of them, just a pius silence. and, it is expected that whatever beliefs the easterns differ on, they should allow that it is possible for Rome to be right. the idea, it was said, was that there shouldn’t be more requirred of soemone who would have passed as christian in the earliest church, than if they were alive today. that is, they would have passed as a full christian then, but now because of their thoughts on infallibility of rome, are not considered christian… and that this shouldn’t be the case

 

[dzheremi]

i read someone once say it’s a model for how a relationship with the orthodox could be. that is, there’s no condemnation of them, just a pius silence. and, it is expected that whatever beliefs the easterns differ on, they should allow that it is possible for Rome to be right. the idea, it was said, was that there shouldn’t be more requirred of soemone who would have passed as christian in the earliest church, than if they were alive today. that is, they would have passed as a full christian then, but now because of their thoughts on infallibility of rome, are not considered christian… and that this shouldn’t be the case

I believe you’re referring to Cardinal Ratzinger’s (later Pope Benedict, now Pope Emeritus) proposal first published in 1987 that says, in part, that “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.” (You can read the whole thing in context here.)

 

[linate]

probably could be its own thread, but why do you think the eastern orthodox don’t take the positions of the eastern catholics who reject infallibility of rome?

i thought i heard of a communion, not sure if it was a ‘council’ that had the roman bishop preside, but wasn’t binding on the orthodox. does this sound right?

i mean, even the orthodox consider the roman bishop at least the ‘first among equals’, no?

 

[dzheremi]

Those questions are best asked for an Eastern Orthodox person. I’m Oriental Orthodox, and don’t understand many of things that they do.

The Roman Pope never presided over any of the councils recognized as ecumenical by the Eastern Orthodox, however. They recognize seven in total, and at none of those seven did the Roman Bishop even attend, let alone preside. He instead sent legates to act in his place. In all of those councils, Western bishops in general were an extreme minority; sometimes not even present at all. The seven, and the presiding bishop of each one of them, are as follows:

1. Council of Nicaea (325 AD) - Hosius of Cordoba and Emperor Constantine - only five Western bishops in attendance (out of 318).
2. Council of Constantinople (381 AD) - Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzus, and Nectarius of Constantinople - zero Western bishops present.

3, Council of Ephesus (431 AD) - Cyril of Alexandria - The two Papal legates (and one priest sent as Pope Celestine’s personal representative) arrived late, and were anyway instructed by Celestine not to participate in the discussions, only to offer judgment on them.

1. Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) - A board of government officials and senators, led by the patrician Anatolius - The Western church was represented by legates Bishop Paschasnius of Lilybaeum, Bishop Julian of Cos, and the priests Boniface and Basil. 370 total bishops attended.
2. Constantinople II (553 AD) - Eutychius of Constantinople - 152 bishops attended, 16 of which were Western.
3. Constantinople III (680 AD) - Patriarch George I of Constantinople - c. 300 bishops in attendance, if added up over all the sessions (no info on how many were Western, but the Pope had sent a few legates and priests, as was usual by this time)
4. Nicaea II (787 AD) - Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople - 350 (the Western Church was represented by two Papal legates)

 

[linate]

is it not true that even the orthodox and perhaps i’d assume the orientals, considered the roman bishop the ‘first among equals’?

i was not aware that no westerners were at constantinople.

this may be outside your knowledge or better asked elsewhere but…

why do you suppose the catholic encyclopedia says it was ‘under’ damasus? if no westerner was there? was he considered the head even though none were present? and reading more about that council at the catholic encyc, it reads as if the catholics only approve of it to the extent that their pope did or does.

are catholics trying to take retroactive credit for it?

what gives with all this?

II. FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Year: 381
Summary: The First General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius I, was attended by 150 bishops. It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

"According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed. In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council. Its mention in the so-called “Decretum Gelasii”, towards the end of the fifth century, is not original but a later insertion in that text (Hefele). Gregory the Great, following the example of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized it as one of the four general councils, but only in its dogmatic utterances (P.G., LXXVII, 468, 893).

 

[Peter_J]

isn’t the melkites known for rejecting the infallibility of rome?

Hi linate. Papal Infallibility was declared by Vatican I, which we (Melkites) don’t consider an ecumenical council. Note, though, that that isn’t the same as saying that the decisions of that council were wrong.

 

[KP3243]

I think you are confusing the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern rite Catholics who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
The main difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern rite Catholicism is ecclesiological–it has to do with what each perceives the nature and structure of the Church to be.

The Orthodox view the Church as a federation of local churches, while Catholics, Eastern-rite or otherwise, see it as an organic communion, with the successor of Peter–the pope–as an essential component of that communion.

You will find this same type of confusion with Anglicans now that Pope Benedict back in 2011 created the Anglican Orinariates in the Latin rite - they are Anglicans who broke from the Church of England who asked to come back in communion with the Bishop of Rome/successor of Peter/Pope and Benedict permitted it and just made a few changes to their mass but they are allowed to keep their traditions. It’s especially confusing because some Anglicans in the Church of England justify the Church England by calling themselves Anglo-Catholics and Catholic just meaning universal nothing to do with Rome.

 

[Peter_J]

probably could be its own thread, but why do you think the eastern orthodox don’t take the positions of the eastern catholics who reject infallibility of rome?

I think you are confusing the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern rite Catholics who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Possibly … wish I could read his mind. Anyhow, I’ll give what is possibly the simplest answer to the question: I think the Eastern Orthodox don’t take the approach that we Melkites do because they do not believe it to be correct (and vice versa).

It’s especially confusing because some Anglicans in the Church of England justify the Church England by calling themselves Anglo-Catholics and Catholic just meaning universal nothing to do with Rome.

It should be noted, though, that on CAF saying “Catholics” (with a capital-C and without qualifier) generally means only us members of the Roman Communion. (No offense to anyone else, of course. )

 

[linate]

reading more on wikipedia, it says that the roman church didn’t even acknowledge constatntinople until like a hundred an fifty years after it was done.

it makes yu wonder about that catholic encylo article.

so as far as i can see, given things like constantinople… the eastern orthodox wouldn’t need to be ‘under’ the roman bishop even in holding councils. they just thought he was first among equals.

i had been under the impression that there could be ‘unity’ between the east and the west, at least if the east did not have to be obligated under the roman bishop. but considering all this new information, one might wonder what a real ‘unity’ would even look like. it doesn’t sound like rome would be the center of it, much to rome’s dismay.

 

[KP3243]

Possibly … wish I could read his mind. Anyhow, I’ll give what is possibly the simplest answer to the question: I think the Eastern Orthodox don’t take the approach that we Melkites do because they do not believe it to be correct (and vice versa).

It should be noted, though, that on CAF saying “Catholics” (with a capital-C and without qualifier) generally means only us members of the Roman Communion. (No offense to anyone else, of course. )

I was talking with a woman on here whose profile said Anglo-Catholic and I thought she was part of an Ordinariate but she wasn’t- she was Church of England. Dr. Taylor Marshall was an Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism and in his book The Eternal City he explained the Anglican thought pattern on calling themselves Catholic. It’s really confusing now when there are Anglicans who are Roman Catholics and Protestant Anglicans from Church of England who call themselves Catholic but are not Catholic in the sense most of the world associates with a Catholic.

 

[KP3243]

reading more on wikipedia, it says that the roman church didn’t even acknowledge constatntinople until like a hundred an fifty years after it was done.

it makes yu wonder about that catholic encylo article.

so as far as i can see, given things like constantinople… the eastern orthodox wouldn’t need to be ‘under’ the roman bishop even in holding councils. they just thought he was first among equals.

i had been under the impression that there could be ‘unity’ between the east and the west, at least if the east did not have to be obligated under the roman bishop. but considering all this new information, one might wonder what a real ‘unity’ would even look like. it doesn’t sound like rome would be the center of it, much to rome’s dismay.

We pray that we will all be one someday. The Orthodox hold Constantine as a saint Catholics don’t, from what I understand I could be wrong but from what I understand Constantine tried to do something and create something he shouldn’t have and that can’t happen until the Messiah comes back. The split is very sad but I think most Catholics have great affection for our Orthodox brothers and sisters and love them very much.

 

[RyanBlack]

We pray that we will all be one someday. The Orthodox hold Constantine as a saint Catholics don’t, from what I understand I could be wrong but from what I understand Constantine tried to do something and create something he shouldn’t have and that can’t happen until the Messiah comes back. The split is very sad but I think most Catholics have great affection for our Orthodox brothers and sisters and love them very much.

Constantine is venerated as a saint by Byzantine Catholics.

 

[true1]

Those questions are best asked for an Eastern Orthodox person. I’m Oriental Orthodox, and don’t understand many of things that they do.

The Roman Pope never presided over any of the councils recognized as ecumenical by the Eastern Orthodox, however. They recognize seven in total, and at none of those seven did the Roman Bishop even attend, let alone preside. He instead sent legates to act in his place. In all of those councils, Western bishops in general were an extreme minority; sometimes not even present at all. The seven, and the presiding bishop of each one of them, are as follows:

1. Council of Nicaea (325 AD) - Hosius of Cordoba and Emperor Constantine - only five Western bishops in attendance (out of 318).
2. Council of Constantinople (381 AD) - Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzus, and Nectarius of Constantinople - zero Western bishops present.

3, Council of Ephesus (431 AD) - Cyril of Alexandria - The two Papal legates (and one priest sent as Pope Celestine’s personal representative) arrived late, and were anyway instructed by Celestine not to participate in the discussions, only to offer judgment on them.

1. Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) - A board of government officials and senators, led by the patrician Anatolius - The Western church was represented by legates Bishop Paschasnius of Lilybaeum, Bishop Julian of Cos, and the priests Boniface and Basil. 370 total bishops attended.
2. Constantinople II (553 AD) - Eutychius of Constantinople - 152 bishops attended, 16 of which were Western.
3. Constantinople III (680 AD) - Patriarch George I of Constantinople - c. 300 bishops in attendance, if added up over all the sessions (no info on how many were Western, but the Pope had sent a few legates and priests, as was usual by this time)
4. Nicaea II (787 AD) - Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople - 350 (the Western Church was represented by two Papal legates)

No way. Seriously? Shouldn’t the popes at the time have attended??? Why didn’t they? There were huge doctrinal issues at stake, no?

 

[Peter_J]

It’s really confusing now when there are Anglicans who are Roman Catholics …

Anglicans are not Roman Catholics. A few (very few) Anglicans are called “Anglo-Papalists” (I think GKC called them “Anglo-Catholics on steroids”) but they aren’t Roman Catholic because they aren’t in communion with Rome. I think you are confusing Anglicans with the Anglican Ordinariates.

 

[RyanBlack]

No way. Seriously? Shouldn’t the popes at the time have attended??? Why didn’t they? There were huge doctrinal issues at stake, no?

Seriously. No Pope attended any of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, all of which were held in the East.

 

[linate]

i am understanding that there are some, at least some melkites.

one example of someone saying this here…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209858

but how do they read the following?

as an example. schism was 1100 ish. the 4th latern council was 1200 ish. yet here is what was said regarding papal authority

“after the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord’s cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.”

do they view it as ‘defer’ meaning give deference to, but not necessary submission to? notice it doesn’t say ‘humbly submit’

and does ordinary power just mean something like a primacy of honor or highest deference or something? or what?

 

[KP3243]

Anglicans are not Roman Catholics. A few (very few) Anglicans are called “Anglo-Papalists” (I think GKC called them “Anglo-Catholics on steroids”) but they aren’t Roman Catholic because they aren’t in communion with Rome. I think you are confusing Anglicans with the Anglican Ordinariates.

I know what you are saying - this is really confusing

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html

The woman who was on the forum here was Church of England but called herself Anglo-Catholic not Papalist but there are groups of Anglicans who are “independent” but calling themselves Roman, this is like a splinter group of a splinter group.The Ordinariates are under the Roman rite of the Catholic Church but they too call themselves Anglican Catholics when you talk to them they had the head of the American Ordinariate on Raymond Arroyo and this is how he identified his group. Under the Roman rite there is an Anglican liturgy now which is where the Ordinariate group falls in.

 

[KP3243]

These are Catholic - in communion with Rome
usordinariate.org
ordinariate.org.uk/about/history.html
ordinariate.org.au

These are not in communion with Rome-despite its name
anglicanritecatholicchurch.org
anglicancatholic.org.uk/about-the-anglican-catholic-church/

 

[Vico]

i am understanding that there are some, at least some melkites.

one example of someone saying this here…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209858

but how do they read the following?

as an example. schism was 1100 ish. the 4th latern council was 1200 ish. yet here is what was said regarding papal authority

“after the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord’s cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.”

do they view it as ‘defer’ meaning give deference to, but not necessary submission to? notice it doesn’t say ‘humbly submit’

and does ordinary power just mean something like a primacy of honor or highest deference or something? or what?

The *Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states:
*Canon 598
§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

      **Canon 1436

**§ 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.

Canon 45

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

 

[linate]

i’m not sure if those canons are applicable to all easterns, including melkites etc, or why there’s so many who say not all easterns believe in infallibility.

i would suppose either way, the latern council may have been perceived even by melkites and everyone as an ecumneitcal council, and thus binding. unlike say vatican I which they dont see as ecumenical.

but all they ‘humbly defer’ v ‘humbly submit’ points would still be applicable as questions?