Question about the Melkite Catholic Church

[LakaYaRabb]

Nice thread

 

[jimmy]

Hey Chelsea, is what I have said accurate to the Melkite position? Is there any way you would modify it?

 

[ronyodish]

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?

JMJ_coder,

Here is a link for the info. on the Mixed Committee for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (the counterpart to my Chaldean Catholic Church of the East). You will notice that some of the discussions deal with Petrine Ministry:
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/ac-rc/e_ac-rc-info.html

Other groups are listed as well:
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/e_dialogues.html

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.

Ok, based on the liturgical tradition of the Church of the East on the Feasts of Sts. Peter and Paul which say:

---

Blessed are you, O Rome, renowned city of kings,
handmaid of the heavenly Bridegroom!
For the two true preachers are laid up in you as in a harbor:
Peter, the head of the apostles,
upon whose truth our Savior built his faithful church,
and Paul the elect, apostle and builder of the churches of Christ.
By their prayers we find refuge,
that mercies and compassion may be granted our souls.​

And based on Scripture passages such as these: Matthew 20:26-27, Luke 22:32, John 16:13, Acts 15:28, etc.

Perhaps, my speculative formula on Papal Primacy might look something like this:

The Holy Spirit guides the Holy Church into all Truth when the Holy Mysteries are celebrated, and when the Holy Faith is taught by the Bishops and the People of God in full communion with them, of which the Bishop of Rome holds Primacy among the Bishops as Peter is the head of the Apostles and as Paul is the builder of the Churches, that he may strengthen his brethren and as first serve them as the servant of all.

This may not be too precise, but I don’t think it violates the essentials of Papal Primacy and what it entails.

God bless,

Rony

 

[jimmy]

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

Rony, I hope things move smoothly in this direction. I hope to see the reunion of the great traditions of Christianity.

 

[ronyodish]

Rony, I hope things move smoothly in this direction. I hope to see the reunion of the great traditions of Christianity.

I hope so too Jimmy :byzsoc:

God bless,

Rony

 

[XtusVictor]

The Holy Spirit guides the Holy Church into all Truth when the Holy Mysteries are celebrated, and when the Holy Faith is taught by the Bishops and the People of God in full communion with them, of which the Bishop of Rome holds Primacy among the Bishops as Peter is the head of the Apostles and as Paul is the builder of the Churches, that he may strengthen his brethren and as first serve them as the servant of all.

This may not be too precise, but I don’t think it violates the essentials of Papal Primacy and what it entails.

God bless,

Rony

I think you wasted your effort. You said nothing but a restatement of the Orthodox position which is inadequate. Nope, no generosity here. Sorry guys, nothing here. Go back to what you were doing.

 

[ronyodish]

I think you wasted your effort. You said nothing but a restatement of the Orthodox position which is inadequate. Nope, no generosity here. Sorry guys, nothing here. Go back to what you were doing.

XtusVictor,

Do you see what I wrote as contradictory to the essential of role of the Pope?

If it is not contradictory, by saying inadequate, what essential have I left out?

How would you reformulate the role of the Pope?

God bless,

Rony

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

JMJ_coder,

Here is a link for the info. on the Mixed Committee for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (the counterpart to my Chaldean Catholic Church of the East). You will notice that some of the discussions deal with Petrine Ministry:
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/ac-rc/e_ac-rc-info.html

Other groups are listed as well:
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/e_dialogues.html

Cool, thanks! Hey, is it just me - or is the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church progressing the most rapidly currently?

Ok, based on the liturgical tradition of the Church of the East on the Feasts of Sts. Peter and Paul which say:

---

Blessed are you, O Rome, renowned city of kings,
handmaid of the heavenly Bridegroom!
For the two true preachers are laid up in you as in a harbor:
Peter, the head of the apostles,
upon whose truth our Savior built his faithful church,
and Paul the elect, apostle and builder of the churches of Christ.
By their prayers we find refuge,
that mercies and compassion may be granted our souls.​

Where in the Liturgy is that from. I am only familiar with that Troparion from that day (various translations):

First in prominence among the Apostles and teachers of the Universe, intercede to the Master of all for peace in the world and for our souls great mercy.

Perhaps, my speculative formula on Papal Primacy might look something like this:

The Holy Spirit guides the Holy Church into all Truth when the Holy Mysteries are celebrated, and when the Holy Faith is taught by the Bishops and the People of God in full communion with them, of which the Bishop of Rome holds Primacy among the Bishops as Peter is the head of the Apostles and as Paul is the builder of the Churches, that he may strengthen his brethren and as first serve them as the servant of all.

This may not be too precise, but I don’t think it violates the essentials of Papal Primacy and what it entails.

God bless,

Rony

Do you see what I wrote as contradictory to the essential of role of the Pope?

If it is not contradictory, by saying inadequate, what essential have I left out?

How would you reformulate the role of the Pope?

God bless,

Rony

That looks like a decent formulation. There are only a few points that I would ask.

Why is Paul added? What do you see as the connection between Paul and the Papacy - us in the Latin Church generally don’t make a hard connection, at least not in our formulations.

Why include the People of God (the laity) in the formulation? Maybe its just my perspective, but I never see the laity in the role of preserving and passing on the Truth for the Church. We are the sheep not the shepherds. I might change that to say something about the Bishops united together - as opposed to a Bishop individually, who could err. (that’s how I see it - but I’m not infallible )

What do you mean by Primacy? That really is the million dollar question - as Catholics and Orthodox will have two different ideas of what primacy entails. I don’t think the definition needs to be part of the formulation, but at some point (I think) it would need to be clarified what do you mean by primacy. This one word (primacy) is about the only one in the formulation that requires a precise definition (you know I love my definitions ).

Other than the two whys and the one what do you mean - I think it is a good formulation and one I think I might use.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

James,

Yes! I think our repsective positions have been adequately represented. Even the staunchly anti-eastern.

 

[jimmy]

That looks like a decent formulation. There are only a few points that I would ask.

Why is Paul added? What do you see as the connection between Paul and the Papacy - us in the Latin Church generally don’t make a hard connection, at least not in our formulations.

Why include the People of God (the laity) in the formulation? Maybe its just my perspective, but I never see the laity in the role of preserving and passing on the Truth for the Church. We are the sheep not the shepherds. I might change that to say something about the Bishops united together - as opposed to a Bishop individually, who could err. (that’s how I see it - but I’m not infallible )

What do you mean by Primacy? That really is the million dollar question - as Catholics and Orthodox will have two different ideas of what primacy entails. I don’t think the definition needs to be part of the formulation, but at some point (I think) it would need to be clarified what do you mean by primacy. This one word (primacy) is about the only one in the formulation that requires a precise definition (you know I love my definitions ).

Other than the two whys and the one what do you mean - I think it is a good formulation and one I think I might use.

St. Irenaeus does the same thing. When giving the succession in Rome he says that Peter and Paul were the foundation of Rome. They were both martyred there.

The east includes the people of God in their understanding of the preservation of truth. The bishops are not those who preserve the truth. And this is part of what I mean when I say the whole Church is led into truth. The laity are led into all truth just as the bishops are. They are not simply led to submit to the bishops. I would love to say more than this but I do not know how to explain it.

 

[XtusVictor]

St. Irenaeus does the same thing. When giving the succession in Rome he says that Peter and Paul were the foundation of Rome. They were both martyred there.

The east includes the people of God in their understanding of the preservation of truth. The bishops are not those who preserve the truth. And this is part of what I mean when I say the whole Church is led into truth. The laity are led into all truth just as the bishops are. They are not simply led to submit to the bishops. I would love to say more than this but I do not know how to explain it.

Generally, the Orthodox people are ignorant of theology in the Eastern countries and believe what their priests tell them. So, it is the same thing except it looks different on papaer.

 

[XtusVictor]

St. Irenaeus does the same thing. When giving the succession in Rome he says that Peter and Paul were the foundation of Rome. They were both martyred there.

The east includes the people of God in their understanding of the preservation of truth. The bishops are not those who preserve the truth. And this is part of what I mean when I say the whole Church is led into truth. The laity are led into all truth just as the bishops are. They are not simply led to submit to the bishops. I would love to say more than this but I do not know how to explain it.

Furthermore, this idea that the people are the final arbiters did not exist until after the rejection of Florence in the East. The hierarchy had accepted Florence but were shamed by the people who hated the West. The concept of popular reception was adopted to account for the rejection of a council accepted by the hierarchy.

Lasty, whole nations can be dead wrong as in the case of the Third Reich. So who ppls can be wrong. This is why papal infallitility is essential to the Church and why the East has not progressed since the divide. They cannot. They do not have the institutional competance to further develop.

 

[jimmy]

Furthermore, this idea that the people are the final arbiters did not exist until after the rejection of Florence in the East. The hierarchy had accepted Florence but were shamed by the people who hated the West. The concept of popular reception was adopted to account for the rejection of a council accepted by the hierarchy.

Lasty, whole nations can be dead wrong as in the case of the Third Reich. So who ppls can be wrong. This is why papal infallitility is essential to the Church and why the East has not progressed since the divide. They cannot. They do not have the institutional competance to further develop.

The western seperation of the Church from the people and the idea that the people are not the gaurdians of the truth is a recent development. Florence didn’t begin any new understanding. If you want to try to disparage the east as bringing in new ideas then every aspect of the western theology can be mentioned because it is far more developmental than anything in the east.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Generally, the Orthodox people are ignorant of theology in the Eastern countries and believe what their priests tell them. So, it is the same thing except it looks different on papaer.

Oh please! Those here in the Latin Church are some of the most ignorant of their faith in the history of the Church - so as the old saying goes, those in glass houses …

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Thanks for the replies.

St. Irenaeus does the same thing. When giving the succession in Rome he says that Peter and Paul were the foundation of Rome. They were both martyred there.

Could you explain maybe a little more? I sort of see it, but not quite yet.

The east includes the people of God in their understanding of the preservation of truth. The bishops are not those who preserve the truth. And this is part of what I mean when I say the whole Church is led into truth. The laity are led into all truth just as the bishops are. They are not simply led to submit to the bishops. I would love to say more than this but I do not know how to explain it.

The western seperation of the Church from the people and the idea that the people are not the gaurdians of the truth is a recent development.

I’m sorry, but I still can’t quite understand this perspective (indeed, I’m not yet sure if I even would agree with it). Could you explain a little more - hopefully with quotes from the Fathers and Councils?

 

[ronyodish]

Cool, thanks! Hey, is it just me - or is the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church progressing the most rapidly currently?

JMJ_coder

It was progressing quite rapidly, but the recent issues surrounding Mar Bawai Soro, an Assyrian bishop, has stalled the discussions.

Where in the Liturgy is that from. I am only familiar with that Troparion from that day (various translations):

First in prominence among the Apostles and teachers of the Universe, intercede to the Master of all for peace in the world and for our souls great mercy.

It is not a Byzantine prayer. It is taken from the liturgical tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East, and of the Chaldean Catholic Church of the East.

Why is Paul added? What do you see as the connection between Paul and the Papacy - us in the Latin Church generally don’t make a hard connection, at least not in our formulations.

The Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter as far as the Primacy of the Papacy, but there is a venerable tradition that says both Peter and Paul founded and build up the Church in Rome, and handed on the Episcopacy to Linus. They tend to be linked together in their liturgical feast, and iconography. I figured I would include this tradition of Peter and Paul together in the formula.

Why include the People of God (the laity) in the formulation? Maybe its just my perspective, but I never see the laity in the role of preserving and passing on the Truth for the Church. We are the sheep not the shepherds. I might change that to say something about the Bishops united together - as opposed to a Bishop individually, who could err. (that’s how I see it - but I’m not infallible )

I included the People of God to say that everyone in the Church who maintains full communion with one another, and with the Bishops, of which the Bishop of Rome is first, can hand on the Deposit of Faith in its fullness to the next generation. As we grow up in the Church, having been nourished by the Holy Mysteries, we as sheep receive from our parents at home and our shepherds at Church the Teachings of the Church, and in turn pass them on to our children. All this is done in full communion.

Those who break full communion are not necessarily separated from the guidance of the Holy Spirit in preserving the True Faith, but they do cause a wounding in the Body of Christ, and if they insist on maintaining a schism and reject efforts for reestablishing full communion with everyone else, then they can not be fulfilling the will of Christ on this issue, and can not be representing this particular truth about Christianity. They still maintain the Deposit of Faith, just not fully on this issue of full communion.

 

[ronyodish]

Continued…

What do you mean by Primacy? That really is the million dollar question - as Catholics and Orthodox will have two different ideas of what primacy entails. I don’t think the definition needs to be part of the formulation, but at some point (I think) it would need to be clarified what do you mean by primacy. This one word (primacy) is about the only one in the formulation that requires a precise definition (you know I love my definitions ).

Primacy refers to the Pope of Rome being Prime or First. The million dollar question is what is the Pope of Rome first in? Is his Primacy merely honorary, is he only first in honor? Or does his Primacy include universal jurisdiction?

I think in order for full communion to be reestablished between the Catholic Church and the various Eastern/Oriental Churches, an answer somewhere in the middle between merely honorary and universal jurisdiction might have to be formulated. I want the Pope of Rome to have the authority to work with the Bishops to maintain peace and full communion among the Particular Churches of the Universal Church, and to prevent any Particular Church from going into schism, but at the same time, I want the Pope of Rome to limit his interventions in the life of the Particular Churches and only intervene when absolutely necessary, and even then, do so collegially with the support of the Bishops. This is why I say the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Also, Primacy will need to be presented in service-like terms. The Pope is first in serving all. In John 13:14, Jesus tells his disciples to wash one another’s feet. The image of the Papacy to the Easterners/Orientals will need to be presented as one who washes the feet of all. The medieval kissing of the Pope’s feet will need to be reversed in the minds of the Easterners/Orientals, in which the Pope, out of love and service to Christ, bends down and kisses the feet of all whom he serves. Just as the Bishop does this washing and kissing of the feet in his own Particular Church, likewise, the Bishop of Rome is there to wash and kiss the feet of all the Bishops of Christ whom he serves.

His Holiness John Paul II says in Article 95 of Ut Unum Sint: “for a great variety of reasons, and against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light…” This is paramount in my opinion. The formulation on Primacy will need to focus on this service aspect.

God bless,

Rony

 

[XtusVictor]

Continued…

Primacy refers to the Pope of Rome being Prime or First. The million dollar question is what is the Pope of Rome first in? Is his Primacy merely honorary, is he only first in honor? Or does his Primacy include universal jurisdiction?

I think in order for full communion to be reestablished between the Catholic Church and the various Eastern/Oriental Churches, an answer somewhere in the middle between merely honorary and universal jurisdiction might have to be formulated. I want the Pope of Rome to have the authority to work with the Bishops to maintain peace and full communion among the Particular Churches of the Universal Church, and to prevent any Particular Church from going into schism, but at the same time, I want the Pope of Rome to limit his interventions in the life of the Particular Churches and only intervene when absolutely necessary, and even then, do so collegially with the support of the Bishops. This is why I say the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Also, Primacy will need to be presented in service-like terms. The Pope is first in serving all. In John 13:14, Jesus tells his disciples to wash one another’s feet. The image of the Papacy to the Easterners/Orientals will need to be presented as one who washes the feet of all. The medieval kissing of the Pope’s feet will need to be reversed in the minds of the Easterners/Orientals, in which the Pope, out of love and service to Christ, bends down and kisses the feet of all whom he serves. Just as the Bishop does this washing and kissing of the feet in his own Particular Church, likewise, the Bishop of Rome is there to wash and kiss the feet of all the Bishops of Christ whom he serves.

His Holiness John Paul II says in Article 95 of Ut Unum Sint: “for a great variety of reasons, and against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light…” This is paramount in my opinion. The formulation on Primacy will need to focus on this service aspect.

God bless,

Rony

Well, rony, I think you are on the right track here. I dont think the jurisdiction of Rome has to be absolute–but it does have to be universal. By that I mean there must be some way for Rome to intervene when really necessary but that that intervention be limited in scope. I dont think Rome has to appoint everyone or even anyone in the East–though I think it is necessary that he appoint bishops in the West. If some form of jurisdiction is not in tthe picture, we are back to Anglicanism. Look at how the Anglican Communion is being pulled apart because the ABC has no authority.

Leaving everything to the laity in the West is to flirt with disaster. Westerners are too secularly oriented in their thinking to separate out the issues. Catholicism has been saved by Rome over and over and over again. JPII/Benedict 16 is only the most recent example of Rome bringing the church back from the brink. We must never forget that.

 

[ronyodish]

Leaving everything to the laity in the West is to flirt with disaster. Westerners are too secularly oriented in their thinking to separate out the issues. Catholicism has been saved by Rome over and over and over again. JPII/Benedict 16 is only the most recent example of Rome bringing the church back from the brink. We must never forget that.

XtusVictor,

I don’t take the perspective that we should leave everything to the laity. I take a full communion perspective, that is, the laity and clergy, the sheep and shepherds, the whole Church are to be of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5), and “one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5).

Second, the ecclesiology of the Church of the East (“East Syriac”) speaks very strongly of the role of the Patriarch. The Synod of Dadisho’ in 424, which is widely regarded as the Synod in which the Church of the East had broken full communion with the West, speaks in regards the Patriarch that “in case a lawsuit is not settled in his presence, then it will be left for the judgment of Christ.” As far as I’m aware, this is still the practice in the Assyrian and Ancient Churches of the East, but for Chaldean Catholics, we can appeal to Rome as a final recourse. The reason I bring this quote is to show that the Patriarch of the Church of the East, not the laity, had the final decision on matters.

Further, at the Synod of Mar Joseph in 554, there were 23 canons that dealt with the Faith and administration of the Church, condemning the interference of lay people in the affairs of the Church.

Earlier in this thread, I had stated that the East is not a uniformed group, and that one Church’s ecclesiology may not reflect exactly the ecclesiology of another. For example, it seems that the laity in the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Churches has more authority than the laity in the ecclesiology of the Churches of the East.

God bless,

Rony

 

[XtusVictor]

XtusVictor,

I don’t take the perspective that we should leave everything to the laity. I take a full communion perspective, that is, the laity and clergy, the sheep and shepherds, the whole Church are to be of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5), and “one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5).

Second, the ecclesiology of the Church of the East (“East Syriac”) speaks very strongly of the role of the Patriarch. The Synod of Dadisho’ in 424, which is widely regarded as the Synod in which the Church of the East had broken full communion with the West, speaks in regards the Patriarch that “in case a lawsuit is not settled in his presence, then it will be left for the judgment of Christ.” As far as I’m aware, this is still the practice in the Assyrian and Ancient Churches of the East, but for Chaldean Catholics, we can appeal to Rome as a final recourse. The reason I bring this quote is to show that the Patriarch of the Church of the East, not the laity, had the final decision on matters.

Further, at the Synod of Mar Joseph in 554, there were 23 canons that dealt with the Faith and administration of the Church, condemning the interference of lay people in the affairs of the Church.

Earlier in this thread, I had stated that the East is not a uniformed group, and that one Church’s ecclesiology may not reflect exactly the ecclesiology of another. For example, it seems that the laity in the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Churches has more authority than the laity in the ecclesiology of the Churches of the East.

God bless,

Rony

It is a common statement among the Orthodox that everything has to meet the approval of the laity, is it not?