Question about the Melkite Catholic Church

[jimmy]

I noticed that you mentioned that the bishops have equal dignity to the pope but they are not equal in jurisdiction. I find this funny since it is the opposite of what the east says and the latins tell the eastern Christians that their understanding is incomprehensible. The east says that all bishops, including the bishop of Rome, are of equal jurisdiction but the bishop of Rome has a primacy of honor. The Latins say this primacy is meaningless and that there must be a superior authority. I will throw this arguement right back at you. You say the pope has greater jurisdiction but all bishops are equal. I assert that in order for them to be of equal dignity they must have equal jurisdiction.

Just to clear some things up. The west makes a distinction that the east does not. They distinguish between a sacramental authority and a juridical authority. The sacramental authority says that all bishops contain an equal authority to confect the sacraments and that the pope is not a greater level of ordination. The bishops contain the essence of apostolic succession. In the east this distinction is meaningless. The role of the bishop is essentially a sacramental role. He is the foundation for the celebration of the Eucharist. As St. Ignatius says, one bishop, one Eucharist. Consequently the west can find a reasoning for papal supremacy but the east can not because it is meaningless to them.

 

[XtusVictor]

It is preposterously non sequitor to claim communion with Rome while simultaneously dishonoring Rome with rebellion. I cannot see how this position in the Church can long endure. You accuse the Catholic Church of dressing up as Easterners and trying to lure the Orthodox into communion through false pretenses. Actually, is the Melkite position which presents itself falsely as a lure to Orthodoxy. The Melkite position proposes a false solution to the East West schism because Rome will not have communion with the East on these terms.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

Xtus,

Your bias and polemicism is atonishing, but at least we know where you stand. That is refreshing in a insignificant way, I suppose.

The Holy Traditions, Spirituality and Theology of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church represents a distinct and nearly 2,000 year development. It was at Anitoch that the followers of Christ were first called Christians. Read Acts. St. Peter himself was the first Bishop of this community. That is the History of the Church. The See of Antioch is a Peterin See, just as Rome is.

Your simple-minded assessment of the complex ecumenical acitivities of the past 500+ years is both offensive and non-sensical. The Melkite Greek-Catholic Church is the heir to the originally common syriac heritage of the Maronite, Syriac and in some ways Assyrian Churches. It was the Great and Holy Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon that granted the Orthodox followers of the Emperor the title melek or later, melkite, meaning king’s men. It was the Great saints Ignatios the God-Bearer, Romanos the melodist, John Chrysostom, John of Damascus and many others to contributed to the Liturgy, Theology, Iconography and hymnography that has enriched the Univerisal Church. Even after the Schism, the Melkite Church at Antioch continued to work for unification. It was in 1729 that a large portion under the Patriarch would achieve this is part, sadly causing a Schism within this Great Church itself.

1700+ years of heritage and traditions! This a tradition intimately connected to its spirituality, Liturgy, Theology and Iconography. The East developed quite differently than the West in these regards. If you read and study, you will realize that this is an integral part of the Universal Church. To adopt Roman Theology is an offense to the legetimate diversity demanded by thousands of years of organic and living tradition. It is a break with true Apostolic life in the members of the faithful.

We are who we are! This is our Church, this is our heritage. It is not new and we were not asked to change it. If we adopted your Theology anfd your faith, we become Roman Catholics with Icons and the Jesus Prayer. This precisely what we are not. The days of latinization or OVER. Read Orientale Lumen. Listen to YOUR Partirarch.

I am telling you, a time will come when this discussion with be irrelevant. What are you going to do then?

Unity if the desire of the Holy Trinity. Listen to His Holiness Benedict XVI!

When unification comes, THERE WILL BE NO EASTERN CATHOLICS! The Melkites just refuse to live YOUR fictional idea of what we have always been. That is why we have nothing to argue about. At the end of the day, We live in the East, but are in Union with the West.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

Xtus,
Rather, what os preposterous is your unsupported slander of the intellectually honestly and stability of the Holy Syond of the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church.

You question/assertation assumes that it is already valid. When did you establish YOU were right? It is you who have fallen into a logical fallacy!

 

[XtusVictor]

Thanks for the history lesson. you have missed the point.

My points are not about history or legitimately differing traditions. My points have been and remain the illogical position of the Melkites to claim that the teaching on infallibility is merely a theory of one Rite. Absolute truth spoken infallibly cannot be merely regional. Truth is universal, not relative.

“We are who we are” is an appeal to identity politics. This same appeal has been made by many other groups in the West. Identity politics shut down discussion rather than provide a ground for initiating a conversation.

Yes, I understand that there is a big and legitimate reaction to latinization. Latinization was a real injury to liturgical and theological traditions. But like all reactions, ideologies can result. And ideologies are the ultimate conversation stoppers. Ideologies reduce complex thought to slogans.

There is a need for East and West to hammer out our differences. This process will require humility on all sides. It will require that all sides exercise some generosity. It will require detailed and studied conversation. It will require a discarding of simple unworkable slogans like Orthodox in communion with Rome.

In a future reunion Catholicism and Orthodoxy will not exist as they do today. Catholicism will have to give up some things. Orthodoxy will have to give up some things.

So, while there will be no Eastern Catholic Churches in the future church, the future church cannot be grasped by the slogan “OICWR.” The hard work has yet to be done. And it cannot be short circuited by the Melkite position.

So there are at least 4 faulty aspects of the Melkite position.

1. It is not a model for reunion because it short circuits the hard work to be done for that reunion to take place.
2. It produces illogical outcomes like absolute truth is regional.
3. It is based on identity politics which shuts down the proper discourse needed to achieve union.
4. It paints an inaccurate view to the Orthodox of the kind of union possible, necessary and sought.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

Thanks for the history lesson. By the way, you 1700 year tradition is just 300 years younger than the Church of Rome. Big deal.

Read Acts. The Church at Antioch is older than the Church at Rome.

My points are not about history or legitimately differing traditions. My points have been and remain the illogical position of the Melkites to claim that the teaching on infallibility is merely a theory of one Rite. Absolute truth spoken infallibly cannot be merely regional. Truth is universal, not relative.

The Pope of Rome teaches within the Holy and Apostolic Traditions, not outside of them. Because of this it must be recognized that the Absolute truth of Apostolic Ecclesiology is that no Bishop is over another.

“We are who we are” is an appeal to identity politics. This same appeal has been made by many other groups in the West. Identity politics shut down discussion rather than provide a ground for initiating a conversation.

Great. We are not the west. It is not identiti politics. We are the Church of Antioch, a Peterine See whose first Bishop was St. Peter himself. We are the living tradition and heritage first syriac, then hellenized. This is Aposotolic teaching in a living community of Christians, not silly ‘identity politics’.

Yes, I understand that there is a big and legitimate reaction to latinization. Latinization was a real injury to liturgical and theological traditions. But like all reactions, ideologies can result. Ideologies are the ultimate conversation stoppers. Ideologies reduce complex thought to slogans.

The Melkite Greek-Catholic Church does not represent and ideology but an Apostolic tradition, reconginzed by two ecumenical councils.

There is a need for East and West to hammer out our differences. This process will require humility on all sides. It will require that all sides exercise some generosity. It will require detailed and studied conversation. It will require a discarding of simple unworkable slogans like Orthodox in communion with Rome.

It will required the acceptance of the FULLNESS of the treasures of both EAST AND WEST. Besides, all of us of the True Faith are Orthodox Catholics. The One True Churc of Christ is both Universal and Orthodox.

In the Eastern Catholic view, Eastern Eccelsiology necessitates communion with the Church of Rome and it with all other Churches because they all make up the legetimate One Church of Christ. No council ever enumerated “Roman” as a mark of the Church.

In a future reunion Catholicism and Orthodoxy will not exist as they do today. Catholicism will have to give up some things. Orthodoxy will have to give up some things.

Wrong! That is heresy and exactly what will not lead to reunification. Rather, the fullness of both Churches must come together in a way in which neither repudiates the other.

So, while there will be no Eastern Catholic Churches in the future church, the future church cannot be grasped by the slogan “OICWR.” The hard work has yet to be done. And it cannot be short circuited by the Melkite position.

Sadly, you didn’t do you homework. The Melkite position, first formulated by Archbishop Elias Zoghby in the 70’s was summarily dismissed then. It was revived onlyafterand in direct reaction to the Balamand Statement.

Why? Because Uniatism was condemned as an inappropriate model for reunification of East and West.

Actually, the Melkite position is acknowledging who we are. Which is why we built a Church together with the Antiochian Orthodox in Syria. Both patriarchs consecrated the altar together. Communion is very real in many ways, whether you like it or not. And yes, Rome knows.

So there are at least 4 faulty aspects of the Melkite position.

1. It is not a model for reunion because it short circuits the hard work to be done for that reunion to take place.

Whatever that means.

1. It produces illogical outcomes like absolute truth is regional.

Great logical fallacy here. You assume you are right in your assertation. Astounding!

1. It is based on identity politics which shuts down the proper discourse needed to achieve union.

This whole thread you have been throwing around this phrase “identity politics”. No one knows what you mean by it.

1. It paints an inaccurate view to the Orthodox of the kind of union possible, necessary and sought.

Unsubstantiated comment, of course.

 

[jj2011]

The Melkite Greek-Catholic Church is the heir to the originally common syriac heritage of the Maronite, Syriac and in some ways Assyrian Churches.

My colleague writes as if there is nothing in the Syriac tradition to support the Roman primacy of jurisdiction. Not so.

Quite apart from the Maronite tradition, which is rich in evidence, there are Syriac canons about the primacy, a translation of which I have already posted, that appear in such sources as Bar Hebraeus and the nomocanon of Elias of Damascus, a Nestorian bishop.

But never mind. Because these sources do not agree with the solemn definitions of my colleague Laka, they do not count.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

My colleague writes as if there is nothing in the Syriac tradition to support the Roman primacy of jurisdiction. Not so.

Quite apart from the Maronite tradition, which is rich in evidence, there are Syriac canons about the primacy, a translation of which I have already posted, that appear in such sources as Bar Hebraeus and the nomocanon of Elias of Damascus, a Nestorian bishop.

But never mind. Because these sources do not agree with the solemn definitions of my colleague Laka, they do not count.

My colleague presupposes I can recall having ever read anything he has ever written on this forum. Not so.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

Besides, I do in fact consider myself a voracious student of all the Holy traditions of the Church. I have two ears (and eyes) that I never mind using for this very purpose.

 

[yeshua]

My colleague writes as if there is nothing in the Syriac tradition to support the Roman primacy of jurisdiction. Not so.

Quite apart from the Maronite tradition, which is rich in evidence, there are Syriac canons about the primacy, a translation of which I have already posted, that appear in such sources as Bar Hebraeus and the nomocanon of Elias of Damascus, a Nestorian bishop.

But never mind. Because these sources do not agree with the solemn definitions of my colleague Laka, they do not count.

**
When will it stop! Latins really must STOP taking the Syriac devotion to Peter out of context.**

There is a reverence for the Petrine Office, not just one, which happens also to be found in Antioch (and as we all know, the see that preceded Rome). That is where this tradition stems from, the reverence was subsequently shared once Rome was founded as a Petrine see. The Petrine Office serves as a unifying institution to the Syriacs which has allowed them to keep unified against Moslem and fellow Christian enemies. Granted, due to Rome’s pinnacle founding as a Petrine see, there is even today an honor given to her, despite schism. However, if the Syriac view of Petrine primacy promulgated by Latins was what Syriacs actually believed (as in one of universal jurisdiction), one would think that the Jacobites and other Syriac churches would be quick to jump into communion with Rome this very instant. This however is not so, and the Jacobites are very proud of how their Petrine office functions, as it has served them for centuries.

Stop defacing what is a tremendous tool for unification and turning it into a polemical farce.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[yeshua]

And as for the Maronites and their timeless evidence towards their devotion to Rome, that is a highly controversial thread probably not suited to the new nature of this forum. We wouldn’t want to break any paradigms, however misinformed.

This entire thread stinks of confirmation bias. I generally stay away from the concept of an “Eastern mindset” but if there ever was a time where it existed, this would be it. I acknowledge it is difficult for Westerners to wrap their minds around the venerable experiences and standings of the Melkites, but it really seems there is nothing anyone can say to show those defacing the Melkite church how ill-informed about this situation they truly are.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[XtusVictor]

Wrong! That is heresy and exactly what will not lead to reunification. Rather, the fullness of both Churches must come together in a way in which neither repudiates the other.

Actually, you just made my point beautifully. Identity politics are designed to shut down conversation because one fears that conversation will reveal their weakness. The ultimate conversation stopper is to call the opponent a heretic. If you dont like something he says, just call him a heretic and hopefully he will just go away. Well, friend, it wont work. I am not a heretic but an Orthodox Catholic.

Half of the time I go to a Catholic mass and half to a UGCC Divine Liturgy. If I am a heretic, there is no hope for any of us.

This whole thread you have been throwing around this phrase “identity politics”. No one knows what you mean by it.

Well, I am glad you raised this point. It is obvious that you have been missing it all along. Why didn’t you just say so?

Identity politics is a way of appearing to make an argument without actually making one. It has been used most effectively in recent times by the homosexual community, but other groups use it as well including islamicists, fascists, feminists and others.

Identity politics works like this: The feminists want to avoid talking about the moral dimensions of abortion so if the opponent is a male, they say well a man cant understand or that a man’s point of view is disqualified by his being male. They say this is a womens issue, men cant have a relevant opinion. This is a great way to avoid a conversation on the details of abortion.

Gays use identity politics most effectively. In order to avoid natural law arguments about the unnaturalness of gay sexuality, they will simply say “This is who I am.” This is not an argument but a rhetorical device to avoid discussing the unpleasant reality that their position is non-sensical.

The Nazi did the most damage with identity politics by asserting the Master Race. This position was an excuse for every kind of atrocity. This kind of identity politics is a way around having to come up with moral arguments for their actions.

Let me say I am not asserting that the Melkite position is morally equivalent to abortion, homosexual activity, or the Nazis. What I am saying is that the Melkite position uses the same kind of argument that these other ideologies have used. It is a way of avoiding conversations.

So far, the Melkites have avoided discussing the irrationality of their position that papal infallibility is true only for the Latin Rite. This is a complete non sequitor.

 

[yeshua]

So far, the Melkites have avoided discussing the irrationality of their position that papal infallibility is true only for the Latin Rite. This is a complete non sequitor.

With all due respect, you have eloquently written off what is an essential facet of Melkite tradition. For an Easterner, as defined by Melkites and perhaps all Eastern and Oriental Catholics, a part of the fruition of being an Easterner is communion with the see of Rome. Simultaneously, that See asked the Eastern and Oriental Churches in communion with her to retain and if necessary cultivate those patrimony traditions. By doing so the Melkites more than any other Eastern or Oriental Catholic church have both fully blessed themselves with the Primacy of Rome and to Rome’s own requests to returning to the patrimony tradition of the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox (Granted, this does play into issues of patrimony in Syriac. vs. Byzantine etc.). In turn, it has historically been for the Melkites whose geographic, liturgical, and theological tradition has ALWAYS placed them between Rome and Constantinople to be a people seeking communion with all of Christendom, with a firm basis in even Biblical scripture.

You see, this is not a fallacy of identity argument, it is a firm stance of tradition by a time honored and Papal respected people. It boggles my mind that Rome stands by and allows this “schismatism” to occur if she really thought it was such.

No, sir, I believe it is you who are using the quick-write off argument, I believe you are the one who without acknowledging a single ounce of the Melkite position as an argument are systematically writing off their position as unfounded because they are sticking with what your own Patriarchal office has known for 1700 years. If you truly want the dialouge you so seek, do not instinctively discount them and actually allow the Melkites to speak their tradition.

Finally, I would greatly encourage you to re-read brother Ghosty’s excellent analysis of the Melkite position from a Western perspective. He is a highly respected Latin who celebrates with both Melkites and Latins.

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!

 

[Aramis]

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.

There are several flaws with the document linked to.

Prime is that the Eastern Patriarchates were not included: The “Non-Catholic Orthodox” have no place in council except as observers, and possibly commentors. But they are in formal and persistent schism.

The first 7 councils were little different; after the fourth, the Coptics were excluded… and yet 5-7 are accepted.

On the other hand, many of them are doctrinal to the west, and neither clarify nor expand upon the east.

While we must accept them, we must accept them in their context: teaching for the Romans, based upon the common truth.

I see no problem with a particular church being in communion with both the EO and Rome; the emphasis on total union is problematic for many, and when the sacraments are valid and licit (as with the Orthodox) communion is a logical first step, and perhaps, as with the Church of the East, the only important one.

From what I’ve read, the Melkite position is that the councils after 1066 are irrelevant to Melkite faith and praxis, and may not be ecumenical. I’ve also only heard the one claimant stating that they are invalid; many seem to think them irrelevant.

But then there are some with church-wide instructions: Vatican II, for prime example, has specific instructions to the east. And the Melkites have, by the accounts I’ve read, adhered to them. (They didn’t have far to go, unlike the Ruthenians…)

They may claim it isn’t ecumenical, and isn’t of direct import upon them, but they obey its instructions. And that is the part that makes them Catholic.

 

[XtusVictor]

With all due respect, you have eloquently written off what is an essential facet of Melkite tradition. For an Easterner, as defined by Melkites and perhaps all Eastern and Oriental Catholics, a part of the fruition of being an Easterner is communion with the see of Rome. Simultaneously, that See asked the Eastern and Oriental Churches in communion with her to retain and if necessary cultivate those patrimony traditions. By doing so the Melkites more than any other Eastern or Oriental Catholic church have both fully blessed themselves with the Primacy of Rome and to Rome’s own requests to returning to the patrimony tradition of the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox (Granted, this does play into issues of patrimony in Syriac. vs. Byzantine etc.). In turn, it has historically been for the Melkites whose geographic, liturgical, and theological tradition has ALWAYS placed them between Rome and Constantinople to be a people seeking communion with all of Christendom, with a firm basis in even Biblical scripture.

You see, this is not a fallacy of identity argument, it is a firm stance of tradition by a time honored and Papal respected people. It boggles my mind that Rome stands by and allows this “schismatism” to occur if she really thought it was such.

No, sir, I believe it is you who are using the quick-write off argument, I believe you are the one who without acknowledging a single ounce of the Melkite position as an argument are systematically writing off their position as unfounded because they are sticking with what your own Patriarchal office has known for 1700 years. If you truly want the dialouge you so seek, do not instinctively discount them and actually allow the Melkites to speak their tradition.

Finally, I would greatly encourage you to re-read brother Ghosty’s excellent analysis of the Melkite position from a Western perspective. He is a highly respected Latin who celebrates with both Melkites and Latins.

Peace and God Bless!

I have not doubt that Ghosty is a learned man on the subject, but still there are problems to be addressed with the Melkite position.

Let’s ignore for the tme being the IC and the Assumption. Let’s just look at Vatican I. Vatican I proclaimed papal infallibility. It makes no sense to say that the pope can define a doctrine as infallible unless the council that proclaims this is itself infallible. Can we have a fallible proclamation of infallibility? No, that would make no sense.

But this is the Melkite position that Vatican I is a regional council and non binding on the Eastern Catholic Churches. So we have a council that proclaims a universal truth that is not universal. Absurd.

The Melkite got outvoted. Overwhelmingly. So their position is to just dismiss the results as nonbinding? Why did they even bother to vote at all if the results were so irrelevant. Their position would make more sense if they had just boycotted the council or abstained from the vote. Anything but paticipate in the vote then after the fact declare it non-binding upon them would make more sense.

 

[Hesychios]

But this is the Melkite position that Vatican I is a regional council and non binding on the Eastern Catholic Churches.

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:

 

[twf]

Based on the reasoning used by my Eastern brothers and sisters on this thread I can reach only one conclusion: All councils since Ephesus have been absolutely invalid and non-binding. If Rome and the East must both be present for a council to be binding, then it is only logical that the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, Assyrian, etc churches must also be present…

 

[jimmy]

The Melkite got outvoted. Overwhelmingly. So their position is to just dismiss the results as nonbinding? Why did they even bother to vote at all if the results were so irrelevant. Their position would make more sense if they had just boycotted the council or abstained from the vote. Anything but paticipate in the vote then after the fact declare it non-binding upon them would make more sense.

Yeh, they were out voted by the Latin Catholics. As if Latin theology bore more authority than the Greek. You seem to think that because Rome calls a council and considers it ecumenical and because they out voted the Melkites that means it is ecumenical and binding on all. That is great. Those who were opposed to Chalcedon had previously called a council in Ephesus in 449 stating that there was one nature in Christ. Therefore since the council of Ephesus in 449 declared there is one nature in Christ then there is one nature in Christ. It is binding on all. That is about as authoritative as your calling Vatican I authoritative. The monophysites out voted the diaphysites in the council of Ephesus.

 

[XtusVictor]

Yeh, they were out voted by the Latin Catholics. As if Latin theology bore more authority than the Greek. You seem to think that because Rome calls a council and considers it ecumenical and because they out voted the Melkites that means it is ecumenical and binding on all. That is great. Those who were opposed to Chalcedon had previously called a council in Ephesus in 449 stating that there was one nature in Christ. Therefore since the council of Ephesus in 449 declared there is one nature in Christ then there is one nature in Christ. It is binding on all. That is about as authoritative as your calling Vatican I authoritative. The monophysites out voted the diaphysites in the council of Ephesus.

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.

 

[jimmy]

It is preposterously non sequitor to claim communion with Rome while simultaneously dishonoring Rome with rebellion.

This is my second time trying to respond to this post because my last got deleted. It told me I was not logged in.

This statement is completely proposterous to me. You keep proposing your ultramontainist view with words like ‘doshonoring Rome with rebellion’. What is that supposed to mean? So now the pope is the principle of unity and the idea of rebellion can be said in relationship to him. Consequently all heresy and schism is an offense against the pope, not God. This is complete idolatry as far as I can tell. The truth is that the Holy Spirit is the principle of unity, not the pope. Rebellion can not be said to be against the pope.

Imagine what the result is when you use this type of thinking to explain ecumenical dialogue. The pope is changing his language to fit the Greek understanding so that the Greeks can understand and become more like the Romans and have union with the pope. What does this sound like?

I cannot see how this position in the Church can long endure. You accuse the Catholic Church of dressing up as Easterners and trying to lure the Orthodox into communion through false pretenses.

That is exactly what your position leads to. You wish the Greeks and Syriacs to deny their respective traditions and submit to the Latin theology and become the puppits of the pope. You wish us to accept the Latin hermeneutic of development and consequently deny the Syriac and Greek idea of mystery and to deny our simple faith. You wish us to accept Latin constructs that contradict our tradition. Consequently it is useless for us to celebrate the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or the liturgy of St. James or any other eastern liturgy because the underlying doctrines our already denied. Consequently we are simply playing dressup and the only reason to do that is to lure the Eastern Orthodox and the Orientals to submit to Latin constructs.

Actually, is the Melkite position which presents itself falsely as a lure to Orthodoxy. The Melkite position proposes a false solution to the East West schism because Rome will not have communion with the East on these terms.

The Melkites offer a truely eastern and patristic ecclesiology. You wish to propose an ecclesiology that the Eastern Christians will not accept. Rome is not the ultimate truth. We seek communion with Rome because there should be communion with all churches not just the church of Rome.There will never be communion with a concept of supremacy.