Official Melkite Position on Vatican I

[Little_Boy_Lost]

What is the official Melkite position on the events that occurred concerning the Melkite Church at the First Vatican Council and what is the official position regarding the Florentine Clause that was inserted in the decree signed by the patriarch and the decree as viewed by the Roman Church.

What do the other Byzantine Churches think of the events of Vatican I and the Melkites?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

It seems to me that the official Melkite position was sufficiently demonstrated when our Patriarch and his delegate first walked out of the Council, then finally subscribed to the document only after adding it’s famous clause. It also seems to me that the Melkite position was further clarified in 1996 (?) when all but two members of our Synod of Bishops (one of those members being a current bishop emeritus here in the U.S. I won’t name names, but it wasn’t Samra or Bustros ) signed Archbishop Zoghby’s “Profession of Faith” (not to be confused with his Initiative).

1. I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals according to the limits recognized by the Greek Fathers in the first millenium before the separation.

Our own current Patriarch is on record as publicly having proclaimed, “I am Orthodox with a plus!”

This, I would say, is our official position. It is also the position of many other Eastern Catholics, both within and without the hierarchy. From what I’ve read the former Patriarch of the UGCC held the exact same belief (although he may not have expressed it in those same words). From what I’ve studied of his life, Metropolitan Sheptytsky also held the same belief (or at least a very similar belief to the point of being revolutionary in its day) for which he was very much persecuted by many of the other “Ruthenian” (I use the term here in its proper sense, not in the sense that it’s commonly understood today) and Galician bishops - later, of course, he was completely vindicated, as I believe the Melkites will be also one day.

On the official level Rome has always demanded, at least on paper, that Eastern Catholics remain true to themselves and to their Orthodox roots. Sadly this official position is not always lived out. Too often Eastern Catholics, both here and elsewhere, have been persecuted for “not being Catholic” (meaning of course not being Roman Catholic).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

1. I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals according to the limits recognized by the Greek Fathers in the first millenium before the separation.

Problem with this is that these two things seem to be mutually exclusive.

One can not believe everything that the Orthodox teach and be in communion with Rome.

Now if they are linking Orthodoxy to #2 as in what Orthodoxy taught according to the Greek Fathers in the first millennium before the separation then I can buy it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother David,

Problem with this is that these two things seem to be mutually exclusive.

One can not believe everything that the Orthodox teach and be in communion with Rome.

Now if they are linking Orthodoxy to #2 as in what Orthodoxy taught according to the Greek Fathers in the first millennium before the separation then I can buy it.

The High Petrine understanding of Vatican 1 seems to be amenable to the Eastern Tradition. I’ve met enough EO who believe so. Granted these EO I’ve met adhere to a High Petrine, not a Low Petrine paradigm. The Ravenna colloquy certainly leaned towards a High Petrine position.

I can understand that the Absolutist and Low Petrine views are “mutually exclusive.” But the High Petrine view seems to be a genuine way that Western, Eastern and Oriental ecclesiologies can come to a common agreement.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dear brother David,

The High Petrine understanding of Vatican 1 seems to be amenable to the Eastern Tradition. I’ve met enough EO who believe so. Granted these EO I’ve met adhere to a High Petrine, not a Low Petrine paradigm. The Ravenna colloquy certainly leaned towards a High Petrine position.

I can understand that the Absolutist and Low Petrine views are “mutually exclusive.” But the High Petrine view seems to be a genuine way that Western, Eastern and Oriental ecclesiologies can come to a common agreement.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks, this along with your posting over at that Byzantine forum (which I found through a Google search) has helped me understand a bit better.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Dear brother David,

The High Petrine understanding of Vatican 1 seems to be amenable to the Eastern Tradition. I’ve met enough EO who believe so. Granted these EO I’ve met adhere to a High Petrine, not a Low Petrine paradigm. The Ravenna colloquy certainly leaned towards a High Petrine position.

I can understand that the Absolutist and Low Petrine views are “mutually exclusive.” But the High Petrine view seems to be a genuine way that Western, Eastern and Oriental ecclesiologies can come to a common agreement.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

Peace and blessings to you. As always you say exactly what I intended but cannot put into words due to my own stupidity. I am in your debt.

Br. David,

I believe that our friend Marduk has accurately expressed how one can be both “Orthodox” (i.e. believing everything that Orthodoxy teaches) and in communion with Rome. Sadly so many of us tend to define Orthodoxy by a lack of communion with Rome (and Catholicism by a lack of communion with Orthodoxy). But even many Orthodox scholars have recognized the importance of Rome and communion with that See. That, obviously, doesn’t mean that Rome is perfect and in no need of reform. Even the Popes have called for a reform of the Papacy using the first Millennium as our model. Personally I believe that any reform of the Papacy in regards to how it treats those “Orthodox” Christians who are in communion with Rome will come about because of courageous Eastern Catholics - bishops, priests, deacons, monks, nuns, laity, etc. - who truly hold fast to their heritage and refuse to be “subordinated” in the sense of being tyrannized by Rome. To paraphrase Bishop Tawil, reform of the Papacy will come about because of those Eastern Christians who have the courage to be themselves and not apologize for it.

 

[Monica4316]

I’m not really clear on this, do Eastern Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope, etc?

 

[Hesychios]

I’m not really clear on this, do Eastern Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope, etc?

You converted into the Latin church teaching on the subject, so your question is framed in a ‘Latin’ way.

It’s a common thing in these discussions. You assume your definition of Infallibility of the Pope is everyone else’s definition, so you don’t elaborate on it.

But it is the definition which is the disputed part, not the dogma. Most professed EC do not dispute the dogma (although I have noticed that a few, very few, actually do).

I am convinced that most of the difference in interpretation of the dogma is rationalization. People know they can’t change the dogma, and they know they have to defend it whether they like it or not, but are reluctant to accept what the church itself has plainly stated on the subject.

So they appeal to all kinds of other sources to frame out an understanding they think they can live with.

 

[Aramis]

I’m not really clear on this, do Eastern Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope, etc?

Generally, yes, but not in the same manner that many Romans, especially Roman Traditionalists, believe.

Papal infallibility protects only against teaching heresy, not to every act of the pope, and flows from his communion with the bishops of the churches in union, as well as from his inheritance of St. Peter’s authority.

 

[mardukm]

You converted into the Latin church teaching on the subject, so your question is framed in a ‘Latin’ way.

It’s a common thing in these discussions. You assume your definition of Infallibility of the Pope is everyone else’s definition, so you don’t elaborate on it.

But it is the definition which is the disputed part, not the dogma. Most professed EC do not dispute the dogma (although I have noticed that a few, very few, actually do).

Agreed.

I am convinced that most of the difference in interpretation of the dogma is rationalization. People know they can’t change the dogma, and they know they have to defend it whether they like it or not, but are reluctant to accept what the church itself has plainly stated on the subject.

I’ve debated the matter with Absolutist Petrine advocates, and it can readily be demonstrated that their interpretation is not what “the Church itself has plainly stated on the subject.” The Absolutist Petrine excesses are based on a myopic and selective consideration of the texts of V1. Absolutist Petrine advocates completely disregard the Official Relatio of Vatican 1, as well as the historic Proem of the Decree on Infallibility, to defend their unpatristic interpretation of “papal infallibility” as defined by Vatican 1.

Full regard for the Official Relatio as well as a contextual reading of the Vatican 1 Decrees demonstrates that, contrary to the Absolutist Petrine excesses:

1. “Papal infallibility” cannot be separated from the infallibility of the Church, but is actually merely a unique exercise of the infallibility of the Church itself (explicitly stated in the definition itself).
2. “Papal infallibility” cannot be exercised at merely the Pope’s discretion, but always in response to the needs of the Church through the solicitude of the bishops of the Church (explicitly stated in the historic Proem).
3. “Papal infallibility” does not permit the Pope to proclaim new doctrine (explicitly stated in the historic Proem).
4. The Rule of Faith which is Apostolic Canon 34 applies even to the definitions of the Pope ex cathedra (explicitly stated in the Official Relatio).
5. Papal primacy does not impede the authority of the local bishop (explicitly stated in the Decree itself).
6. The Pope is not above an Ecumenical Council (affirmed by the Official Relatio).

So they appeal to all kinds of other sources to frame out an understanding they think they can live with.

What do you mean by “other sources?” The only sources I’ve used in my debates against the Absolutist Petrine advocates are the Official Relatio from Vatican 1, the full text of the decrees of Vatican 1, and comments by Fathers of the Majority Party at Vatican 1. In a recent debate at the Apologetics Forum, the Absolutist Petrine advocates utilized “other sources,” and I demonstrated from those self-same “other sources” that their appeal to those sources was self-refuting.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Marduk,

“Papal infallibility” cannot be exercised at merely the Pope’s discretion, but always in response to the needs of the Church through the solicitude of the bishops of the Church (explicitly stated in the historic Proem).

in regards to your qualities of papal infallibility, I generally agree with you, however while not expressly invoking this ex cathedra, many Roman Catholics contend that because he is speaking with the authority of peter, Pope Paul VI saved the church from modernist views on contraception and that this shows the Holy Spirit upholding the truth of the Vatican I decree on the papal office and safeguarding the teaching of life and procreation.

Even my own Church’s Patriarch, Maximos IV seemed to encourage a discussion and perhaps revision of the Church’s stance on contraception. For me this has implications regarding how melkites and other byzantines (Or eastern Catholics for that matter) can view the First Vatican Council’s decree or other majority positions that can be framed as “Latin vs. Eastern.”

 

[mardukm]

in regards to your qualities of papal infallibility, I generally agree with you, however while not expressly invoking this ex cathedra, many Roman Catholics contend that because he is speaking with the authority of peter, Pope Paul VI saved the church from modernist views on contraception and that this shows the Holy Spirit upholding the truth of the Vatican I decree on the papal office and safeguarding the teaching of life and procreation.

Most (not all, but MOST) Latin Catholics understand that Humanae Vitae is an infallible teaching by virtue of the ordinary Magisterium. The ordinary Magisterium is by definition a COLLEGIAL exercise of the Church’s infallibility. When the Pope exercises his ordinary Magisterium (as distinct from his extraordinary Magisterium in promulgating an ex cathedra Decree), he is performing an explicit act as a member of the College of Bishops -.as the voice of the College of Bishops. Granted, Absolutist Petrine advocates like to pretend it is otherwise.

Even my own Church’s Patriarch, Maximos IV seemed to encourage a discussion and perhaps revision of the Church’s stance on contraception. For me this has implications regarding how melkites and other byzantines (Or eastern Catholics for that matter) can view the First Vatican Council’s decree or other majority positions that can be framed as “Latin vs. Eastern.”

I am not fully apprised of HH Maximos’ stance on contraception. Is he trying to change the Church’s TEACHING on artificial contraception, or is he simply promoting the use of oikonomia? Do you see the difference (a difference which I think is lost on many Latins)?

That’s all I have time for right now. Hopefully, I can engage in this conversation more fully towards the end of the week.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[smad0142]

Marduk,

Even if he is trying to use economy (I have a hard enough time spelling in english ) to say that contraception is OK, isn’t that a misuse of economy? Can economy really dispense from divine law when alternatives like NFP are available? Furthermore, can economy ever really dispense from divine law?

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

My understanding of Economia (Oikonomia) is that it is a dispensation for the betterment of someone’s spiritual health.

Thus, I received Economia from my pastor this lent to continue consuming certain foods since it was my first journey with the Church during Lent.

An example for the situation we are talking about, is say a couple comes to a priest for marriage prep or counseling and they tell him they are using contraception. He might tell them they can continue receiving communion, but must check in with him about their progress of overcoming their sin and seek reconciliation more frequently. In that, if he judges it’s for the best interest of the couple, to continue receiving the divine mysteries instead of barring them from them as they struggle with their sin.

Another example might be a couple who has been on contraception but has had 4 or 5 children and have decided they cannot for time and economic reasons bring another child into their family. Their Spiritual Father would probably recommend to stop using whatever artificial method of contraception they are using and learn natural family planning with his blessing.

Neither of these situations involves a pastor condoning sin. This is where I believe some orthodox have strayed or misused Economia. Artificial contraception is missing the mark about life.

If I am wrong about how Economia should properly be understood, please let know!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother smad,

Even if he is trying to use economy (I have a hard enough time spelling in english ) to say that contraception is OK, isn’t that a misuse of economy? Can economy really dispense from divine law when alternatives like NFP are available? Furthermore, can economy ever really dispense from divine law?

I don’t have much time, but I feel this is really important to understand.

Brother Little Boy Lost has explained the Church’s patristic teaching on oikonomia very well. Oikonomia is not a permission to sin, nor a relaxation of a doctrinal or moral teaching. Oikonimia, practically speaking (which is really the only sense in which it is relevant), is a relaxation of the canonical penalty normally associated with a particular act that is considered morally or theologically wrong by the Church.

Let’s use the example of stealing. In the early Church, sins always came with AT LEAST a minor excommunication - i.e. deprivation from the Sacraments (aside from Confession, of course) for a period of time, in order to instill in the sinner the gravity of his or her sin. A person steals, and would normally be deprived of participation in the Eucharist for a short period of time (the greater the sin, the longer the period for denial of communion). But if he goes to confession, and his confessor realizes that the person stole for the purpose of providing some necessary thing for his dying mother, then the confessor would, by use of oikonomia, cancel the normal canonical penalty of minor excommunication.

So the priest, in that example, is not saying, “it is OK to steal,” but rather, is recognizing the unique circumstance whereby that person fell short of the mark, and, by the power of the keys, cancels the normal canonical penalty for his sin.

As explained by brother Little Boy Lost, in terms of other serious sins, the priest may actually consider that the penitent needs the Grace of the Eucharist and thus cancel the normal canonical penalty for the sin.

I have indeed encountered EO who have expressed this classic misunderstanding of oikonomia - I mean, these particular EO think that oikonomia is a relaxation of a moral teaching of the Church. Generally speaking, oikonomia is considered a relaxation of a rule of the Church. But it would be a mistake to think that the “rule” that is being relaxed is the teaching itself. The only “rule” that is actually being relaxed in applying oikonomia is the normal canonical penalty attached to the violation of the teaching.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[smad0142]

Brother Marduk I thank you for such a wonderful explanation of economy, something that I could never quite get my head around. My almighty God bless you for your service.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

What was Maximos’ stance on Contraception truly? I also understand that Bishop John Raya held similar views? Are there more melkite bishops that share these views? I’m just curious, especially since they seem to be the most vocal eastern patriarchate.