Question about the Melkite Catholic Church

[Hesychios]

In the non-Catholic Forum I read with interest and surprise these comments relating to the Melkite Catholic and the Latin Catholic churches Sui Iuris. I was interested to read this because of an ongoing series of talks between Holy Orthodoxy and the bishop of Rome, possibly with the idea of establishing just this sort of relationship.

Is this person correct in his comments about the Melkites and their relationship to Rome?

I wonder if the Eastern Catholics here have anything to add to this information. I thought of posting this in apologetics as well, but it seems more relevant here.

Thanks,
*Michael

The Melkite Church is as a sui juris entity has equal dignity but not equal jurisdiction with Rome. Rome has never approved the Melkite position on doctrinal matters. According to Eastern Canon Law, such approbation by Rome is required for acts of Patriarchs or Synods to have effect. Lacking such approval, the Melkite position is without force and irrelevant to East West discussion.

As for the meaning of the word ecumenical, it’s specific meaning in this context cannot mean Imperial as everyone agrees that these are ecumenical talks. And there is no credibility to the idea that these are imperial talks. Furthermore, what made an ancient council ecumenical was not that they were imperial but that they were approved as binding by all the churches–that is, that they were world wide. If a council were called by the Eastern Emperor but not approved by Rome, it could not be considered ecumenical. So Rome’s approval was more essential to ecumenicity than the role of the Emperor.

The Melkite position is illogical and irrational. It is a political position which cannot hold up under even a moment’s intellectual scrutiny. The absolute claims of the councils of the Catholic Church cannot be abandoned or regarded as regional. That would be a case of relativism. In the long term the various rites of the church cannot have different truths. In the post modern age nor in any other age, neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic Church can accept a communion of mutually exclusive claims. What is proposed by the Melkites is neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy but Anglicanism. And we are all witnesses to the disastrous consequences of the English approach to religion.

You may read the context of the post here…

 

[jj2011]

I cannot accept that the sort of union proposed in the Ravenna thing is sound.

Many of the ecumenical councils that occurred after 787 defined doctrines under penalty of anathema, notably Trent and Vatican I. The Roman Church cannot change or equivocate about her dogmatic definitions any more than the Orthodox can blur the anathemas of the fourth ecumenical council to achieve union with non-Chalcedonians.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I don’t think the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are going to “fudge” around doctrinal positions so as to achieve union at all cost. I think both sides are very clear that reunion must be based on truth and a common faith, which is why both sides are taking such pains to continye to engage in theological dialogue. Christian unity is not a result of political bargain, but a gift from God.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

We are who we are. The Orthodox wish us to abandon our common heritage because we are in communion with Rome. Some members of the Church of Rome want us to adopt thier traditions, theoloogy, and councils.

We are who we are and as Archimandrite Robert Taft supposed, perhaps we are happy where we are—being and striving to fully be Eastern AND in Communion with the Church of Rome. It is our tradition we are living it.

If you are not Melkite, I don’t expect you to understand. We are proud to be who we are!

 

[LakaYaRabb]

We have our models and honestly, they are models for others as well. Unfortunately, there are many who are not getting the credit they deserve!

We have models such as His Beatitude Maximos IV, Archbishop Elias Zoghby, His Beatitude Gregorios III, Archbishop Joseph Raya and many others! These are just the Melkites. There are other Easterns to credit.

 

[XtusVictor]

We are who we are. The Orthodox wish us to abandon our common heritage because we are in communion with Rome. Some members of the Church of Rome want us to adopt thier traditions, theoloogy, and councils.

We are who we are and as Archimandrite Robert Taft supposed, perhaps we are happy where we are—being and striving to fully be Eastern AND in Communion with the Church of Rome. It is our tradition we are living it.

If you are not Melkite, I don’t expect you to understand. We are proud to be who we are!

The Melkite claim that the ex cathedra teachings, and the ecumenical councils 8-21 are merely Western doctrine and inapplicable to any Easterner who wishes to jettison them is preposterous.

How can one hold that a universally proclaimed infallible truth is only regionally applicable? It just doesn’t make sense. Identity politics is destroying Western Civilization.

The fundamental message of Benedict XVI in the face of the postmodernist world is that we have to stop using excuses like identity politics and subjectivist appeals as a way of avoiding the central issues of our time.

Differences and compatibilities between East and West will have to be hammered out. It may take generations. I may take centuries.

 

[XtusVictor]

We have our models and honestly, they are models for others as well. Unfortunately, there are many who are not getting the credit they deserve!

We have models such as His Beatitude Maximos IV, Archbishop Elias Zoghby, His Beatitude Gregorios III, Archbishop Joseph Raya and many others! These are just the Melkites. There are other Easterns to credit.

These may be good and holy men, but they are anything but models. They are not. They have proposed no real solution and have given us slogans in place of reasoned discourse.

 

[Woodstock]

I don’t have the heart to enter into this type of dialog right now, trying to prove myself an equal to other Catholics. I’m posting to let those of you who are called to it know that I’m praying for you.

 

[XtusVictor]

I don’t have the heart to enter into this type of dialog right now, trying to prove myself an equal to other Catholics. I’m posting to let those of you who are called to it know that I’m praying for you.

It is not about proving yourself equal. It is about making sense. You are not a victim.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

That’s great!

You follow your Patriarch. I going to follow mine: His Beatitude Gregorios III.

 

[Seamus_L]

Elias Zoghby’s Initiative was rejected by the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches and even the Melkite Hierarchy. At V2 he questioned the indissolubility of marriage and was rebuffed by Maximos IV Saigh, so I fail to see exactly who he’d be a model for ?
Not aware of any attempted Latinizations in the Melkite Rite or any other Eastern Churches of late. Sometimes it's just an overzealous convert out to prove he's more Eastern than the cradle EC's.

 

[XtusVictor]

That’s great!

You follow your Patriarch. I going to follow mine: His Beatitude Gregorios III.

Yes, go ahead and play follow the leader. But just remember that Rome is committed to reasoned solutions, not nationalistic banner waving.

It is interesting that the Melkites are full a bravado when they tout their slogans but never engage in rational discourse on these matters. With them it is a matter of nationalistic pride, not reason.

 

[XtusVictor]

For those interested in learning more about the Melkite initiative, here is an excellent link:

melkite.org/Questions/T-5.htm

It is an interesting thought experiment, but fails the rationality test.

 

[Hesychios]

Elias Zoghby’s Initiative was rejected by the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches and even the Melkite Hierarchy.

This is actually incorrect.

The Melkite hierarchy wholeheartedly endorse the initiative of Archbishop Elias Zoghby. The entire Synod except for two voted in favor of it. The Patriarch of the Melkites offered to resign his See in favor of the Orthodox Patriarch, if it would advance the cause of Christian unity. Archbishop Elias, author of the famous initiative, should probably have been excommunicated according to your reading of Canon Law, he was not. In fact he is grandly praised for his efforts and still continues to refer to himself as Orthodox! It might be noted that both of those who voted against the initiative were bishops in the diaspora, who are appointed by the Pope.

One of those two was bishop John Elya (whom is referenced above from the Melkite website), whom has since been replaced by a signer of the Initiative. Clearly, he does not speak the mind of the synod.

The Vatican and the Orthodox both agree that it is inopportune to have a church in communion with both the Orthodox and Rome at the same time. Primarily because of the Papal doctrines, which are left in a fuzzy gray area (neither affirmed nor denied with any clarity). That might change in the future as interchurch dialog (such as at Belgrade and Ravenna) moves forward.

One can only hope! :byzsoc:

 

[Ignatius]

In the non-Catholic Forum I read with interest and surprise these comments relating to the Melkite Catholic and the Latin Catholic churches Sui Iuris. I was interested to read this because of an ongoing series of talks between Holy Orthodoxy and the bishop of Rome, possibly with the idea of establishing just this sort of relationship.

Is this person correct in his comments about the Melkites and their relationship to Rome?

I wonder if the Eastern Catholics here have anything to add to this information. I thought of posting this in apologetics as well, but it seems more relevant here.

Thanks,
Michael

You may read the context of the post here

 

[XtusVictor]

That is simple XtusVictor’s opinion, nothing more.

And still no engagement with the ideas of the post. The dearth of intellectual engagement says volumes about the Melkite position. If you cant refute an argument, then it is more than opinion.

 

[XtusVictor]

This is actually incorrect.

The Melkite hierarchy wholeheartedly endorse the initiative of Archbishop Elias Zoghby. The entire Synod except for two voted in favor of it. The Patriarch of the Melkites offered to resign his See in favor of the Orthodox Patriarch, if it would advance the cause of Christian unity. Archbishop Elias, author of the famous initiative, should probably have been excommunicated according to your reading of Canon Law, he was not. In fact he is grandly praised for his efforts and still continues to refer to himself as Orthodox! It might be noted that both of those who voted against the initiative were bishops in the diaspora, who are appointed by the Pope.

One of those two was bishop John Elya (whom is referenced above from the Melkite website), whom has since been replaced by a signer of the Initiative. Clearly, he does not speak the mind of the synod.

The Vatican and the Orthodox both agree that it is inopportune to have a church in communion with both the Orthodox and Rome at the same time. Primarily because of the Papal doctrines, which are left in a fuzzy gray area (neither affirmed nor denied with any clarity). That might change in the future as interchurch dialog (such as at Belgrade and Ravenna) moves forward.

One can only hope! :byzsoc:

You have it mostly right. Rome did not just reject the Melkite position as inopportune but as unworkable in its entirety. The Melkite position which rejects the last 14 ecumenical councils does not leave infallible teaching fuzzy, but it rejects them out of hand. It cannot be a model for a re-union with the Orthodox as it is a negation of Christian essentials. The rejection of the last 14 ecumenical councils and the infallible teachings can only be a non-negotiable.

There is one point of the Melkites that may have traction for a future reunion; and that is the limitation of Roman jurisdiction in the administration of an Eastern Church. There could be all kinds of leeway on this point.

Other doctrinal matters which have no bearing on infallible teaching may also be considered equally valid. In other words, there is no need that either Rome be hellenized or the Orthodox be latinized on every point. As our liturgies have been distinct from the beginning, so our theologies have been distinct from the beginning. As long as we agree on essentials, there need not be any problem.

For instance I could see transubstantiation regarded as the Latin explanation of the Eucharist and the Orthodox having their own account side by side, neither superior or more properly explaining what is ultimately a mystery.

While infallibility is a non-negotiable, there may be flexibility in the future exercise of papal infallibility taking in the opinion of the Eastern patriarchs, for example.

Already the Holy Father has proposed a more Eastern conception of purgatory. I suspect there is room for all kinds of coming together on a variety of issues.

However, the Melkite position in itself is absolutely untenable. Suffice it to say, if the Melkite position were legitimate in the eyes of Rome, we might have reunion already as there would be no barriers left.

 

[Ghosty]

The Melkite claim that the ex cathedra teachings, and the ecumenical councils 8-21 are merely Western doctrine and inapplicable to any Easterner who wishes to jettison them is preposterous.

I’m not sure that this can validly be said to be “the Melkite claim”. It is one thing to say that the second millenium Councils aren’t Ecumenical and don’t generally reflect the theological tradition of the East (specifically the Byzantines in the case of the Melkites), another to say that they are irrelevant and merely matters of Latin opinion. I’ve only heard one Melkite Bishop say that the decisions of those Councils can be completely “jettisoned” (Sayedna Zoghby), and I’ve not heard any of the other Melkite Bishops get behind this particular view of his; it wouldn’t be the first time he went out on a limb of his own and spoke for himself, as he did so at Vatican II concerning marriage, and he always makes it clear that these are HIS views. There are dozens more Latin Bishops who question the validity of Catholic decisions, so one Melkite Bishop who serves his Church well even while voicing controversial views isn’t really a big enough fish to go after, IMO.

That being said, the Latin controversies and formulas don’t often strictly apply to Byzantine theology, not because there is fundamental disagreement, but because they deal with issues that aren’t relevant in ways that don’t fit squarely with the Byzantine theological approach; the debates about indulgences, for example, hardly apply to a tradition in which the cleansing of the effects of sin are spoken of differently, and in which there has never been any question about offering up alms and prayers and Liturgies on behalf of the dead. It’s not that the Latin Church is “wrong” about Indulgences, it’s just that the theological context in which they were discussed, and the issues that were raised, don’t come up in Byzantine theology at all. If and when they DO come up or become relevant, I’m sure the Latin Councils will be looked at as a guide for handling the matter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

The problem with this arguement is that it is circular. The acts of Melchite synods are meaningless because they do not have the support of Rome but the fact is that that is exactly what the Melchites deny. They view themselves as an autonomous church that governs itself and teaches itself. The pope is not the infallible definer of doctrine and universal authority according to the melchites. The Melchites do not support the eastern canon law because it is basically the latin code forced on the easterners. That is great that the pope defined the IC but the fact is that that is a western doctrine that is contradictory to eastern theology. Since all theologies and churches are equal, even according to VII, it must be conceded that the east does not have to accept it. That is great that you love to define your faith but we do not.

as it is a negation of Christian essentials.

Essentials? Apparently the ancient Christians didn’t find them too essential. Otherwise there would be no arguement about it.

 

[jimmy]

It seems through these discussions that the Latin Church is as bad as any imperialist nation that has gone through the world making every land their own and forcing those who live there to submit to themselves. It seems that they wish to make us basically their little pet that they can use to trick the eastern Christians into thinking they actually accept some aspect of eastern Christianity. You anathematize the Greeks, and consequently also the Greek fathers, but while doing that you also say that you support the continued use of eastern Christan tradition. And this ‘use’ is exactly what you percieve it as. We are just to basically play dress up as eastern Christians. We are to be basically latins with beards and eastern vestments who like to use incense alot.