Question about the Melkite Catholic Church

[jimmy]

You argument is so distorted and so distant from the facts as to be completely without merit.

If the Melkites were going to view Vatican I as only binding on the West, they should have not voted. Why vote or even participate in what you consider irrelevant and without force?

The reason is that the Melkites only in the 1970’s came up with this theory. At the time in 1870 they regarded the council as binding. Others such as some Old Catholics left the church after 1870 because they did not ascribe to the teaching. In their departure, they were at least honest.

So now you try to demean me by saying my arguement is dostorted and without merit. Good arguement. You have conquered, you are the victor!!!

What does voting have to do with whether it is ecumenical and binding on the whole Church? There have been many times in history where a group of Christians have lost a vote in a council and continued to reject the council. The west on the other hand has this concept that if the pope says so then it is so. The pope declares a council ecumenical and binding therefore it is so.

Your history is false, the Melkites have held to this view since long before the 70’s.

 

[jimmy]

I have not seen you offer an arguement yet. You have simply reasserted this statement that the Melkites are wrong and their arguements are illogical but without any support other than that Rome disagrees.

 

[XtusVictor]

I have not seen you offer an arguement yet. You have simply reasserted this statement that the Melkites are wrong and their arguements are illogical but without any support other than that Rome disagrees.

Wow, what a huge avoidance. Simply answer the question: Is papal infallibility applicable to the Melkites?

If not, they make the pope a liar.

 

[jimmy]

Wow, what a huge avoidance. Simply answer the question: Is papal infallibility applicable to the Melkites?

If not, they make the pope a liar.

I have avoided nothing, it is you who have avoided the questions. I say something and you simply say that my arguement has no merit. Good answer.

I have told you exactly what the Melkites believe. No, papal supremacy and infallibility are meaningless to the Melkites for reasons I have already mentioned.

 

[XtusVictor]

I can see the logic to their position.

It appears that the RCC may be moving in that same direction, if the statement from Ravenna is any indication…

Christian Apostolic Unity may be possible in our lifetimes…
One can only hope! :extrahappy:

Rome will not and can not renounce papal infallibility. Unity is up to the Orthodox and will likely only happen after several more centuries. Even if the doctrinal issues could miraculously be overcome, the Orthodox faithful will reject reunion because of their deep-seated anti-Catholicism.

When prejudice is so deep that an Orthodox priest will not even acknowlege a Catholic priest, shake his hand, speak to him or even look at him, there is something so wrong and such a prevailing spirit of animosity that little can be done. When Eastern Catholic call the pope a liar and a fraud, how can there be union with the Orthodox?

 

[Ignatius]

If you cant refute an argument, then it is more than opinion.

Nonsense, is a self refuting argument!

 

[XtusVictor]

How do you figure that?

What planet do you live on? An irrefutable argument is more than an opinion. What word did you not understand?

 

[jimmy]

What planet do you live on? An irrefutable argument is more than an opinion. What word did you not understand?

That is false logic. Simply because it is not refuted does not make it any more true. Your arguement has been refuted on this thread.

 

[XtusVictor]

That is false logic. Simply because it is not refuted does not make it any more true. Your arguement has been refuted on this thread.

No one has refuted the argument that the Melkite position makes the pope a liar and a fraud. How can a regional council proclaim an infallible teaching? How can the teaching on infallibility be taught fallibly?

The rejection of papal infallibility makes the pope the worst kind of liar and a fraud. It dishonors the pope and everything that Catholicism stands for. It is an anti-Catholic position.

This is further supported by the Melkite rejection of the name Catholic. They now consider themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

 

[yeshua]

This is further supported by the Melkite rejection of the name Catholic. They now consider themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

I am about to “run out the door,” but do intend to come back later and comment on the wealth that has been posted.

It might just be a point of clarification, but often times the addition of “Catholic” is redundant for many Eastern and Oriental Churches. For example, most Maronites in Lebanon do not refer to themselves as a “Maronite Catholic” but simply a “Maronite.” This is because the nature of their Catholicity is entirely linked to being a Maronite. It is as if one cannot separate the two. This often reverberates into common society, outside of the U.S. with Maronites then referred to as “Maronite Christians.”

Anyway, the same perhaps is with the Melkites, unless there is some aspect of Melkite history I am perhaps missing at the moment due to my frantic haste?

Peace and God Bless!

 

[jimmy]

No one has refuted the argument that the Melkite position makes the pope a liar and a fraud. How can a regional council proclaim an infallible teaching? How can the teaching on infallibility be taught fallibly?

The rejection of papal infallibility makes the pope the worst kind of liar and a fraud. It dishonors the pope and everything that Catholicism stands for. It is an anti-Catholic position.

This is further supported by the Melkite rejection of the name Catholic. They now consider themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

The latin idea of the subjugation of all bihsops to that of Rome dishonors every bihsop in the world. The idea that the pope is the principle of unity dishonors God.

Catholicism does not stand for the pope, it stands for God. God is the center of Catholicism not the pope. So, no it does not dishonor everything Catholicism stands for.

Maybe the west needs an infallible leader to guide it but the east does not. And maybe in that way the pope does have some sense of infallibility, because the west grants it to him. But the east does not need infallibility because it does not have the same perspective on theology.

The Melkites do not reject the name Catholic. If that were the case they wouldn’t say it in their creed every liturgy. That is a complete nonsense arguement. If they didn’t want communion with Rome then they wouldn’t be in communion with Rome.

Your statement sounds like a rejection of the title orthodox. Why wouldn’t they consider themselves orthodox? The term Orthodox in communion with Rome basically says that they agree with the Eastern Orthodox when it comes to doctrine but they are in communion with Rome. It has nothing to do with a name. You limit the term Catholic to being a name and it consequently loses its true meaning.

I can not convince you of my position. I can only explain things as I see them. You are going to have to have an epiphany on your own. I once had a similar view to your own but it no longer makes any sense at all to me.

 

[ronyodish]

For those who have some time on their hand to read, here is a link with some information:

melkite.org/xCouncil/Council-5.htm

You might want to especially scroll down to the bottom and read the section titled: Primacy and Infallibility: Final Synodal Remarks

God bless,

Rony

 

[Ignatius]

Catholicism does not stand for the pope, it stands for God. God is the center of Catholicism not the pope. So, no it does not dishonor everything Catholicism stands for.

It is XtusVictors’ failure to understand this that leads to his failure to recognize that his argument has been refuted. The only way for him to see it is for him to understand the above.

 

[Hesychios]

When prejudice is so deep that an Orthodox priest will not even acknowlege a Catholic priest, shake his hand, speak to him or even look at him, there is something so wrong and such a prevailing spirit of animosity that little can be done. When Eastern Catholic call the pope a liar and a fraud, how can there be union with the Orthodox?

I don’t know where these remarks come from. Was there a post to this effect on the thread that I missed? I fail to see the relevence to this discussion.

…Even if the doctrinal issues could miraculously be overcome, the Orthodox faithful will reject reunion because of their deep-seated anti-Catholicism.

Thank you for your opinion, but we are discussing the Melkite Catholic church at present. It seems to me that the one expressing deep seated prejudice here is you.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Rony,

For those who have some time on their hand to read, here is a link with some information:

melkite.org/xCouncil/Council-5.htm

You might want to especially scroll down to the bottom and read the section titled: Primacy and Infallibility: Final Synodal Remarks

God bless,

Rony

It seems that by this, the Melkite Synod had a position staked out before the Council. Which almost makes it seem that they had already put some thought into it well before.

…the Melkites only in the 1970’s came up with this theory.

The commentary of 1964 is enlightening. Again, the assembled Synod speaks, before the close of the Council.

All this before the 70’s?

Michael

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The latin idea of the subjugation of all bihsops to that of Rome dishonors every bihsop in the world. The idea that the pope is the principle of unity dishonors God.

Catholicism does not stand for the pope, it stands for God. God is the center of Catholicism not the pope. So, no it does not dishonor everything Catholicism stands for.

Whoa! Are you describing what you think is what some Latins think, or you think that the Latin doctrine as formulated at Vatican I is erroneous?

Also, God is the center of the Church (as He should be of our lives), but the Pope is the visible sign and guarantor of unity of the Universal Church as the Bishops are the visible sign and guarantor of unity of their Particular Churches (Lumen Gentium, 23).

Maybe the west needs an infallible leader to guide it but the east does not. And maybe in that way the pope does have some sense of infallibility, because the west grants it to him. But the east does not need infallibility because it does not have the same perspective on theology.

Whoa! Again this has a harsh sound to it. The East has no need of the Pope and infallibility, is that what you are saying?

Given what you have said here, I must ask - do you even believe in the doctrine of Papal Infalliblity?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

For those who have some time on their hand to read, here is a link with some information:

melkite.org/xCouncil/Council-5.htm

You might want to especially scroll down to the bottom and read the section titled: Primacy and Infallibility: Final Synodal Remarks

God bless,

Rony

Thanks for the link.

“Yet, because of the formulas used, the Orthodox world will inevitably see the opposite: that is to say, a dictatorship pure and simple… no matter how charitably the popes in general intended these formulas.”

This sounds just like what Dr. Scott Hahn said - “If the Pope in Rome is not the infallible vicar of Christ who can bind hundreds of millions of Catholics in their beliefs and practices, then he’s a tyrant. He’s a spiritual dictator pure and simple.”

Also, it says that the Latin formulas might not be adequate or understood well in Eastern thought. I can see that, as many Latin formulas don’t necessarily translate well into Eastern theology even though we profess the same thing. There seems to be a long list of what seems to maybe recommendations or suggestions (I didn’t go through the whole thing). But for all the complaining and agonizing over it, I see no concrete thought in their addresses. So…

What would be an Eastern formula for the doctrine of Papal Infalliblity?

 

[jimmy]

Hello,

Whoa! Are you describing what you think is what some Latins think, or you think that the Latin doctrine as formulated at Vatican I is erroneous?

Also, God is the center of the Church (as He should be of our lives), but the Pope is the visible sign and guarantor of unity of the Universal Church as the Bishops are the visible sign and guarantor of unity of their Particular Churches (Lumen Gentium, 23).

Whoa! Again this has a harsh sound to it. The East has no need of the Pope and infallibility, is that what you are saying?

Given what you have said here, I must ask - do you even believe in the doctrine of Papal Infalliblity?

I never said the east doesn’t need the west, I said the east doesn’t need infallibility. I believe the east needs the west but I also believe that the west needs the east in the same way.

I gave the doctrine of infallibility and supremacy as it is formulated by Vatican I. You can soften it if you want but that is what it said. I did not distort anything about what was said by the council. The latins make the pope more than simply a sign of unity.

 

[XtusVictor]

Hello,

Thanks for the link.

“Yet, because of the formulas used, the Orthodox world will inevitably see the opposite: that is to say, a dictatorship pure and simple… no matter how charitably the popes in general intended these formulas.”

This sounds just like what Dr. Scott Hahn said - “If the Pope in Rome is not the infallible vicar of Christ who can bind hundreds of millions of Catholics in their beliefs and practices, then he’s a tyrant. He’s a spiritual dictator pure and simple.”

Also, it says that the Latin formulas might not be adequate or understood well in Eastern thought. I can see that, as many Latin formulas don’t necessarily translate well into Eastern theology even though we profess the same thing. There seems to be a long list of what seems to maybe recommendations or suggestions (I didn’t go through the whole thing). But for all the complaining and agonizing over it, I see no concrete thought in their addresses. So…

What would be an Eastern formula for the doctrine of Papal Infalliblity?

Yes, I cant wait to hear the Easter Catholic/Orthdox formulation of papal infallibility which does not contradict Vatican I. When they can write that formulation, I think this dispute will be over.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I never said the east doesn’t need the west, I said the east doesn’t need infallibility. I believe the east needs the west but I also believe that the west needs the east in the same way.

I don’t mean to misrepresent you, that is just how it sounded to me. I still am failing to understand what exactly you mean by the East doesn’t need infallibility?

I gave the doctrine of infallibility and supremacy as it is formulated by Vatican I. You can soften it if you want but that is what it said. I did not distort anything about what was said by the council. The latins make the pope more than simply a sign of unity.

I was looking through the documents from Vatican II which gave the declaration I cited. I’ve looked at the documents from the Vatican I Council and while it mentions the universal jurisdiction of the Pope (e.g., Head of the Visible Church), I don’t see where the Latin formulas place the Pope in the center of the Church in lieu of God. Again, I don’t mean to misrepresent you, but that is how it sounds to me.