Question about the Melkite Catholic Church

[jimmy]

Hello,

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?

The Church in every corner of the world is guided by Gods Holy Spirit. The Church of every tradition is guided and will not fail. Why does the Greek or the Syriac tradition need an infallible definer of dogma when it is already guided by the Spirit? Further, we have no intent to define our doctrine. If we needed to define our doctrine we would call a council but really that is not necessary. We have a simple faith that does not desire definition. We like mystery, symbolism and paradox. In the west these might be something that needs to be made clear but we do not try to make them clear. How many writings do you think the Maronites have? There is no record of any writings of the Maronites before they came into contact with the west in the twelfth century. To me this seems like it emphasizes the fact that Maronite Christianity is essentially practical and not very theoretical. Its faith is essentially that of the liturgy and of scripture. It does not incorporate philosophy and it does not try to make definitions. It is simple, but we have no problem with that. We simply hold to our tradition.

The west pretty much limits the guidance of the Spirit to the pope and the bishops when they are gathered together with him. It seems like the guidance of everyone else is that they are guided to simply submit to the pope.

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.

Oh, with the reference to placing the pope in the center of the Church rather than God I was refering to Xtus Victor’s perspective and that of many other Latins.

 

[XtusVictor]

Oh, with the reference to placing the pope in the center of the Church rather than God I was refering to Xtus Victor’s perspective and that of many other Latins.

It is not nice to put words in another’s mouth. God is the center of the Church and God has chosen a visible expression and instrument of that unity. Hey it is in the bible and tradition. The pope is unavoidable.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The Church in every corner of the world is guided by Gods Holy Spirit. The Church of every tradition is guided and will not fail. Why does the Greek or the Syriac tradition need an infallible definer of dogma when it is already guided by the Spirit? Further, we have no intent to define our doctrine. If we needed to define our doctrine we would call a council but really that is not necessary. We have a simple faith that does not desire definition. We like mystery, symbolism and paradox. In the west these might be something that needs to be made clear but we do not try to make them clear. How many writings do you think the Maronites have? There is no record of any writings of the Maronites before they came into contact with the west in the twelfth century. To me this seems like it emphasizes the fact that Maronite Christianity is essentially practical and not very theoretical. Its faith is essentially that of the liturgy and of scripture. It does not incorporate philosophy and it does not try to make definitions. It is simple, but we have no problem with that. We simply hold to our tradition.

The west pretty much limits the guidance of the Spirit to the pope and the bishops when they are gathered together with him. It seems like the guidance of everyone else is that they are guided to simply submit to the pope.

Thanks for the explanation. I can certainly agree with a good deal of it, though there are some things that don’t quite seem right to me. For instance, you mention no need or desire for defining doctrine, but this is exactly what was need during the great christological heresies in the early Church. Indeed, Saint Cyril of Alexandria developed a whole language of terms to debate with the Nestorians. Almost all the heretics loved vagueness in their language. But we need to know what we mean when we say something and not be vague, even by an iota (note reference to homoousia/homoiousia debate). We can still maintain mystery while at the same time being precise in our terms.

Also, there is a need for infallibility or else everything we believe could be false - since it would just be the product of fallible men. The infallibility is primarily and ordinarily exercised by the Bishops in union with the Pope. Why do we add, in union with the Pope - because he is the visible sign and guarantor of unity in the Universal Church.

Does that make any sense? Have I forgotten anything?

Oh, with the reference to placing the pope in the center of the Church rather than God I was refering to Xtus Victor’s perspective and that of many other Latins.

O.K. - well, they’d be wrong. What is the center of the Church? The Eucharist is the source, center, and summit of the Church!

 

[Seamus_L]

It boggles the mind that anyone would suggest that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility defined at the 1st Vatican Council is not binding upon the Eastern Catholic Churches. The wording is unmistakably clear “all Christians” “universal Church”. To put it in the most polite terms possible, if you truly believe the Holy Father is not the infallible head of Christ’s Church on earth, then you should join the Orthodox Church.

 

[tdgesq]

So belief in the infallibility criterion of Vatican I is the litmus test for being Catholic? I don’t think so. I certainly wouldn’t recommend becoming Orthodox in that circumstance.

 

[XtusVictor]

It boggles the mind that anyone would suggest that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility defined at the 1st Vatican Council is not binding upon the Eastern Catholic Churches. The wording is unmistakably clear “all Christians” “universal Church”. To put it in the most polite terms possible, if you truly believe the Holy Father is not the infallible head of Christ’s Church on earth, then you should join the Orthodox Church.

I have intentionally tried not to say this. But now that you have, I add my amen.

 

[ronyodish]

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

JMJ_coder,

I want to point out first that the East is not one uniformed group, so within the East/Orient, there are distinct theological positions on the Church. One Eastern/Oriental Church’s ecclesiology may not reflect exactly the ecclesiology of another.

I also want to point out that Catholics and the various Easterners/Orientals not in full communion are working towards a formulation of Papal Primacy (and all that it entails) in a manner that is acceptable to all, but without violating what is essential to it. Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio (Article 14), and the Holy Father John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint (Article 95) gives Catholics some (name removed by moderator)ut on how to proceed with this.

Having said the above, I’ll let the Churches decide on how best to formulate the role of the Pope. Any “Eastern” formula I might put down here on this forum will only be speculation on my part.

God bless,

Rony

 

[XtusVictor]

JMJ_coder,

I want to point out first that the East is not one uniformed group, so within the East/Orient, there are distinct theological positions on the Church. One Eastern/Oriental Church’s ecclesiology may not reflect exactly the ecclesiology of another.

I also want to point out that Catholics and the various Easterners/Orientals not in full communion are working towards a formulation of Papal Primacy (and all that it entails) in a manner that is acceptable to all, but without violating what is essential to it. Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio (Article 14), and the Holy Father John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint (Article 95) gives Catholics some (name removed by moderator)ut on how to proceed with this.

Having said the above, I’ll let the Churches decide on how best to formulate the role of the Pope. Any “Eastern” formula I might put down here on this forum will only be speculation on my part.

God bless,

Rony

This sounds promising, Rony. But there is no indication anywhere that suggest an eastern formulation of papal infallibility is coming.

 

[ronyodish]

This sounds promising, Rony. But there is no indication anywhere that suggest an eastern formulation of papal infallibility is coming.

XtusVictor,

Perhaps the theological talks between the Catholic Church and the various Eastern/Oriental Churches are slowly leading up to it.

It is quite impressive in my opinion that we have reached agreements on Christology in the past few decades with the various Oriental Orthodox Churches, as well as, the Assyrian Church of the East.

I think an agreement on Ecclesiology will eventually, with God’s help, be reached as well. It is inevitable that the role of the Pope (and all that it entails) will eventually be thoroughly discussed and hammered out, whether or not a solution may come in our lifetime.

God bless,

Rony

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I want to point out first that the East is not one uniformed group, so within the East/Orient, there are distinct theological positions on the Church. One Eastern/Oriental Church’s ecclesiology may not reflect exactly the ecclesiology of another.

That’s certainly true. Even within the individual Churches there can be some variations. Of course, this is also true in the Latin Church. I do think that Eastern Orthodoxy and/or Byzantine Catholicism should be able to have one general formulation that is acceptable to all from that theological perspective and the same with Oriental Orthodoxy/Catholicism - well, at least I would hope.

I also want to point out that Catholics and the various Easterners/Orientals not in full communion are working towards a formulation of Papal Primacy (and all that it entails) in a manner that is acceptable to all, but without violating what is essential to it. Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio (Article 14), and the Holy Father John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint (Article 95) gives Catholics some (name removed by moderator)ut on how to proceed with this.

Do you have any idea when we might see or hear anything on this - is it on the agenda’s of any of the Synodal Meetings or anything like that?

Having said the above, I’ll let the Churches decide on how best to formulate the role of the Pope. Any “Eastern” formula I might put down here on this forum will only be speculation on my part.

True enough. But, I trust that you are knowledgeable enough in Eastern theology that if you had a particular view on this it might indicate at least a general idea of what a formulation by the Eastern Bishops may look like. I seriously don’t know what an Eastern perspective would begin to look like on this issue as its always presented either as the Eastern Orthodoxy view of just some vague primacy of honor (whatever that actually means) and the Vatican I formulations.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Perhaps the theological talks between the Catholic Church and the various Eastern/Oriental Churches are slowly leading up to it.

It is quite impressive in my opinion that we have reached agreements on Christology in the past few decades with the various Oriental Orthodox Churches, as well as, the Assyrian Church of the East.

I think an agreement on Ecclesiology will eventually, with God’s help, be reached as well. It is inevitable that the role of the Pope (and all that it entails) will eventually be thoroughly discussed and hammered out, whether or not a solution may come in our lifetime.

I certainly hope so. I see the changes in the world and we’re quickly coming to the time when we’re going to be fighting for our very survival - and I don’t think we will survive without each other.

 

[jimmy]

Thanks for the explanation. I can certainly agree with a good deal of it, though there are some things that don’t quite seem right to me. For instance, you mention no need or desire for defining doctrine, but this is exactly what was need during the great christological heresies in the early Church. Indeed, Saint Cyril of Alexandria developed a whole language of terms to debate with the Nestorians. Almost all the heretics loved vagueness in their language. But we need to know what we mean when we say something and not be vague, even by an iota (note reference to homoousia/homoiousia debate). We can still maintain mystery while at the same time being precise in our terms.

Also, there is a need for infallibility or else everything we believe could be false - since it would just be the product of fallible men. The infallibility is primarily and ordinarily exercised by the Bishops in union with the Pope. Why do we add, in union with the Pope - because he is the visible sign and guarantor of unity in the Universal Church.

Does that make any sense? Have I forgotten anything?

O.K. - well, they’d be wrong. What is the center of the Church? The Eucharist is the source, center, and summit of the Church!

I have no problem with development if it is needed and called for, for example in the Christological or Trinitarian discussions. It should also be in conformity with the traditions. The problem I have is when development is concieved of as a necessary aspect of the Church or if it is a conscious attempt to develop the doctrine. For example, the declaration of the IC. What was the need for it? There was no heresy tearing the Church apart. It was simply the will of the pope and most of the bishops to make it dogma. Development has become almost something that is desired and hoped for. Look at this group that is calling for the Mediatrix of all graces to be declared dogma. Why would that even be a thought? Why can’t people just respect what has been handed to them and accept it as it is? I think(I might be wrong) that it is the result of the scholastic approach in the west. They take a more rational approach to things and do not have the great respect that the Syrians or Greeks have for the divide between God and creation. The Latins tend to think that all can be known about God.

I do not believe that the Church can fail. The Church is absolutely indefectible. There is no chance of it going into error because God guides the Church. But as I mentioned above, I don’t think He simply guides the pope. I think that God guides the whole Church in all its traditions - including the Greek, the Latin, the Syriac, the Armenian, the Coptic and etc. - into all truths.

I use the word indefectibility purposely. I understand the Church’s indefectibility in a passive way in that the Church will never err because God is always giving it what is necessary and He constantly fills it. I think this is the understanding of all the east as well but I have not done a whole lot of reading on it so I can only go by my sense of the faith.

Whereas with the term infallibility it tends to emphasize the idea that the Church goes out and proclaims dogma. It is essentially a western idea. The Church has the ability to go and proclaim a dogma because God will protect it. They declare a council to be ecumenical before the council is even held. It is almost to say that the pope and the bishops call down God and God shows up when needed.

I don’t think infallibility is necessarily a false term but it seems to lead to false approaches to the faith.

I agree whole heartedly with you about the Eucharist. It is the source of the Church.

 

[jimmy]

It boggles the mind that anyone would suggest that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility defined at the 1st Vatican Council is not binding upon the Eastern Catholic Churches. The wording is unmistakably clear “all Christians” “universal Church”. To put it in the most polite terms possible, if you truly believe the Holy Father is not the infallible head of Christ’s Church on earth, then you should join the Orthodox Church.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that many latins make Catholicism centered around the pope rather than God. You have seperated true faith from communion in the Church.

 

[jimmy]

Hello,

I certainly hope so. I see the changes in the world and we’re quickly coming to the time when we’re going to be fighting for our very survival - and I don’t think we will survive without each other.

Yes, I agree. The Church needs unity. If we can not unite we will never convert the world. It is the divides in Christendom that led to the modern secularism. If there was no Great schism and reformation then the modern society would probably be largely Christian.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I have no problem with development if it is needed and called for, for example in the Christological or Trinitarian discussions. It should also be in conformity with the traditions. The problem I have is when development is concieved of as a necessary aspect of the Church or if it is a conscious attempt to develop the doctrine. For example, the declaration of the IC. What was the need for it? There was no heresy tearing the Church apart. It was simply the will of the pope and most of the bishops to make it dogma. Development has become almost something that is desired and hoped for. Look at this group that is calling for the Mediatrix of all graces to be declared dogma. Why would that even be a thought? Why can’t people just respect what has been handed to them and accept it as it is? I think(I might be wrong) that it is the result of the scholastic approach in the west. They take a more rational approach to things and do not have the great respect that the Syrians or Greeks have for the divide between God and creation. The Latins tend to think that all can be known about God.

I do not believe that the Church can fail. The Church is absolutely indefectible. There is no chance of it going into error because God guides the Church. But as I mentioned above, I don’t think He simply guides the pope. I think that God guides the whole Church in all its traditions - including the Greek, the Latin, the Syriac, the Armenian, the Coptic and etc. - into all truths.

I use the word indefectibility purposely. I understand the Church’s indefectibility in a passive way in that the Church will never err because God is always giving it what is necessary and He constantly fills it. I think this is the understanding of all the east as well but I have not done a whole lot of reading on it so I can only go by my sense of the faith.

Whereas with the term infallibility it tends to emphasize the idea that the Church goes out and proclaims dogma. It is essentially a western idea. The Church has the ability to go and proclaim a dogma because God will protect it. They declare a council to be ecumenical before the council is even held. It is almost to say that the pope and the bishops call down God and God shows up when needed.

I don’t think infallibility is necessarily a false term but it seems to lead to false approaches to the faith.

I agree whole heartedly with you about the Eucharist. It is the source of the Church.

Thank you for the reply. I can’t say that I disagree with your perspective and point of view. Though, I don’t think you properly representing the Latin perspective (that’s probably us Latin folks fault for at times giving that perspective). For instance, where you say that “The Latins tend to think that all can be known about God.” - well, that’s not the way it is supposed to be, but we like all men can fall into the sin of intellectual pride. I had a thread on this a few weeks ago and would love if you would join it:

The Mystery of God

And the way you put the infallibility of the Church is very close to how I view it (and yes, I hold to the Latin formulations of Vatican I). God does provide what is necessary when it is needed (not in the sense of us calling God down). For instance, when the Pope calls a Council, I don’t see that as the Church trying to call God down, but the Holy Spirit guiding the Church by inspiring Her to call a Council.

That’s about all I can think of right now - why do I always fell like I am forget something lately?!

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I might add that we do need each other for the fact that we keep each other balanced. The West could easily become intellectually prideful and try to dogmatize everything under the sun including things that are non-essential (i.e., disciplines, theologoumenon, etc.). The East could easily become closed in on itself and become stagnate and overtaken. By having each other, where we at times play a game of tug-and-war between these two extremes, we keep our entire Church balanced and non-extremist.

 

[jimmy]

Hello,

Thank you for the reply. I can’t say that I disagree with your perspective and point of view. Though, I don’t think you properly representing the Latin perspective (that’s probably us Latin folks fault for at times giving that perspective). For instance, where you say that “The Latins tend to think that all can be known about God.” - well, that’s not the way it is supposed to be, but we like all men can fall into the sin of intellectual pride. I had a thread on this a few weeks ago and would love if you would join it:

The Mystery of God

And the way you put the infallibility of the Church is very close to how I view it (and yes, I hold to the Latin formulations of Vatican I). God does provide what is necessary when it is needed (not in the sense of us calling God down). For instance, when the Pope calls a Council, I don’t see that as the Church trying to call God down, but the Holy Spirit guiding the Church by inspiring Her to call a Council.

That’s about all I can think of right now - why do I always fell like I am forget something lately?!

That is interesting that you just started a thread on this issue and now we are discussing it. It is divine providence I tell you.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

That is interesting that you just started a thread on this issue and now we are discussing it. It is divine providence I tell you.

I started it after debating with a bunch of atheists on another forum and my head was hurting from their ultra rationalistic tracts (you think us Scholastics are bad ). I needed to refresh myself in that inexhaustible well of the Mystery of God. Forget my frail human logic and just give me God!

As a side note, I am very much at home in Carmelite theology and spirituality - which is quite apophatic and Eastern in its outlook.

 

[jimmy]

Hello,

I might add that we do need each other for the fact that we keep each other balanced. The West could easily become intellectually prideful and try to dogmatize everything under the sun including things that are non-essential (i.e., disciplines, theologoumenon, etc.). The East could easily become closed in on itself and become stagnate and overtaken. By having each other, where we at times play a game of tug-and-war between these two extremes, we keep our entire Church balanced and non-extremist.

Yes, without unity east and west become triumphalist. The west expects the east to submit to western perspectives because the west is the truth and the east does the same. The truth is put into a box which is either Latin or Greek. We should be able to accept that the other traditions are being led by God just as we are(me as a Syriac and you as a Latin).

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Yes, without unity east and west become triumphalist. The west expects the east to submit to western perspectives because the west is the truth and the east does the same. The truth is put into a box which is either Latin or Greek. We should be able to accept that the other traditions are being led by God just as we are(me as a Syriac and you as a Latin).

I am reminded of a homily one of the local Dominicans gave about a year or two ago. He was commenting on how the Pharisees and Sadducees went to conspire with the Herodians against Jesus. Here you had the one, which was ultra-conservative and the other which were the decided liberals (the Herodians would fit right in with society today). But Jesus was not on the extreme of either side, but in the middle where the two plotted against Him. And while this homily highlighted right-left differences - as in ultra-conservative-traditionalists (i.e., SSPX and sedevacantists) and ultra-liberal (i.e., Catholics-for-a-free-choice) - I think the general principle can be applied to other areas, such as the extremes that can occur in the West and East. Jesus is to be found in the middle!