Question about the Melkite Catholic Church

[jimmy]

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

It is not simply the approval of the laity as if the laity are the final judge. It is a matter of the Spirit of God guiding His Church into the truth. The Spirit is active in all members of the Church, not only the bishops. The laity are not simply there to be taught by the bishops.

 

[ronyodish]

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

Jimmy has given an answer on how the Orthodox think on this. Perhaps an Orthodox Christian can come on this board and give us his/her further (name removed by moderator)ut.

God bless,

Rony

 

[jimmy]

I would also like to mention two more things. First is the fact that even if the majority of the people accept the council it still does not make it ecumenical. The Church could later come to the conclusion that it is not ecumenical and later generations might all reject it because it is not consistent with the tradition. The Church is of all times and places therefore a council can not be limited to one time or place. So time is an important thing.

Second, the liturgy is another important thing in the ecumenicity of councils. Each ecumenical council is commemorated in the liturgy in the Melkite Church on a specific sunday. For example the seventh council is commemorated on the Sunday of Orthodoxy which is the celebration of the triumph of orthodoxy against iconoclasm. Once a council is commemorated in the liturgy of the Church it can not be denied that it is ecumenical.

Further, the word infallibility is not accurate in eastern tradition. The word infallibility means that the Church has the ability to make decisions without error. Before they make the decision they know they can make infallible decisions. Within the eastern frame they do not believe a council or any bishops have this infallible ability to make decisions without error. The Church will never fall into error but it does not have this charism of infallibility. It is indefectible, which means it will never defect from the truth. That doesn’t mean its councils are infallible necessarily by virtue of them being universal and supported by most in the Church. The Church looks back at the past and can say that certain councils were without error but that is not because they had some charism that preserves councils from error.

 

[XtusVictor]

I would also like to mention two more things. First is the fact that even if the majority of the people accept the council it still does not make it ecumenical. The Church could later come to the conclusion that it is not ecumenical and later generations might all reject it because it is not consistent with the tradition. The Church is of all times and places therefore a council can not be limited to one time or place. So time is an important thing.

Second, the liturgy is another important thing in the ecumenicity of councils. Each ecumenical council is commemorated in the liturgy in the Melkite Church on a specific sunday. For example the seventh council is commemorated on the Sunday of Orthodoxy which is the celebration of the triumph of orthodoxy against iconoclasm. Once a council is commemorated in the liturgy of the Church it can not be denied that it is ecumenical.

Further, the word infallibility is not accurate in eastern tradition. The word infallibility means that the Church has the ability to make decisions without error. Before they make the decision they know they can make infallible decisions. Within the eastern frame they do not believe a council or any bishops have this infallible ability to make decisions without error. The Church will never fall into error but it does not have this charism of infallibility. It is indefectible, which means it will never defect from the truth. That doesn’t mean its councils are infallible necessarily by virtue of them being universal and supported by most in the Church. The Church looks back at the past and can say that certain councils were without error but that is not because they had some charism that preserves councils from error.

Well, the Orthodox dont have infallibility because they dont have the pope.

That a council can be ecumenical to one generation and not for the next just shows the inconsistency of Orthodoxy and breaks down the myth that the Orthodox faith is unchanging and unchangeable.

 

[jimmy]

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

The Church of Rome’s primacy was founded upon the fact that both Peter and Paul were martyred there. It is not simply because Peter founded it. If that were the case then Antioch could claim the same primacy because they claim Peter as their first bishop.

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?

Eastern Christianity approaches knowledge of God in a phenomenological or experiential way. We know God through our experience of His presence within us. We must cultivate our prayer life and the ascetical life in order for Gods presence to grow in us. The guidance of the Church as a whole is an extension of the guidance of the individual Christian due to the fact that each individual Christian is meant to be incorporated into the Church. I recently saw a quote which was basically, ‘a Christian who is alone is not a Christian’. So, according to the Melkites when the Church is guided by the Spirit it is the hearts of individual Christians not some overarching organ of the Church. But these individuals are led as a part of the community. Now, in Orthodoxy the bishops and the monks of Mt Athos and the other monks are extremely important in this regard because they are the bishops are always monks and the monks are generally very holy men who have spent their whole life in prayer. This is the tradition which the Melkites follow.

 

[jimmy]

Well, the Orthodox dont have infallibility because they dont have the pope.

That a council can be ecumenical to one generation and not for the next just shows the inconsistency of Orthodoxy and breaks down the myth that the Orthodox faith is unchanging and unchangeable.

This statement simply shows your incomprehension of Eastern Christianity’s approach to ecumenicity. A council is not simply determined to be ecumenical by the generation that calls the council. As the Ravenna document says, the Church can not call an ecumenical council.

Instead in the west Rome calls down God at the time of an ecumenical council and God appears at the will of the pope. It’s a magic trick.

Here is what the Ravenna document says regarding the participation of the Church in a council

1. Conciliarity or synodality involves, therefore, much more than the assembled bishops. It involves also their Churches. The former are bearers of and give voice to the faith of the latter. The bishops’ decisions have to be received in the life of the Churches, especially in their liturgical life. Each Ecumenical Council received as such, in the full and proper sense, is, accordingly, a manifestation of and service to the communion of the whole Church.

 

[XtusVictor]

Instead in the west Rome calls down God at the time of an ecumenical council and God appears at the will of the pope. It’s a magic trick.

You attempt to denigate is unappreciated and will in the end not get you very far.

Which is harder to believe, that Rome has the authority to call an Ecumenical Council or that your average priest can “call down God” and confect the Eucharist?

If one accepts the latter as a certainty of faith, what is to make the former look absurd? Nice try, but ridiculing Rome just wont work here.

 

[jimmy]

You attempt to denigate is unappreciated and will in the end not get you very far.

Which is harder to believe, that Rome has the authority to call an Ecumenical Council or that your average priest can “call down God” and confect the Eucharist?

If one accepts the latter as a certainty of faith, what is to make the former look absurd? Nice try, but ridiculing Rome just wont work here.

Your double standards won’t get you too far either. You continually try to denigrate the eastern Christians but when something comparable to what you say is said in reference to the west then you get offended.

 

[XtusVictor]

Your double standards won’t get you too far either. You continually try to denigrate the eastern Christians but when something comparable to what you say is said in reference to the west then you get offended.

I do not denigrate the East. I point out the truth of the Petrine Ministry and its necessity. This is no insult to anyone.

I also point out the ongoing anti-Catholic prejudice that is the biggest barrier to reunion.

This is not to denigrate but to show the truth. We cannot work for reunion without dealing with the real problems. AntiRomanism is as rampant among the Melkites as among the Orthodox. This is a real shaming of Christ’s Church.

 

[jimmy]

I do not denigrate the East. I point out the truth of the Petrine Ministry and its necessity. This is no insult to anyone.

I also point out the ongoing anti-Catholic prejudice that is the biggest barrier to reunion.

This is not to denigrate but to show the truth. We cannot work for reunion without dealing with the real problems. AntiRomanism is as rampant among the Melkites as among the Orthodox. This is a real shaming of Christ’s Church.

The Melkites are not anti Roman. If that is the case then the Romans can just as easily be said to be anti Melkite. If the Melkites were anti Roman they wouldn’t be in communion with Rome. What you call anti Roman is a different interpretation of theology. The fact that the Melkites do not accord the same type of authority to the bishop of Rome that the Romans accord to him is not anti Roman, it is simply a different interpretation.

Yes many Orthodox are anti Roman but on the other hand many Romans are anti Orthodox. It is not simply an aspect of Eastern Christianity.

 

[XtusVictor]

The Melkites are not anti Roman. If that is the case then the Romans can just as easily be said to be anti Melkite. If the Melkites were anti Roman they wouldn’t be in communion with Rome. What you call anti Roman is a different interpretation of theology. The fact that the Melkites do not accord the same type of authority to the bishop of Rome that the Romans accord to him is not anti Roman, it is simply a different interpretation.

Yes many Orthodox are anti Roman but on the other hand many Romans are anti Orthodox. It is not simply an aspect of Eastern Christianity.

Funny, I have never read a Rome-positive comment by a Melkite or an Orthodox, for that matter.

 

[Aramis]

Funny, I have never read a Rome-positive comment by a Melkite or an Orthodox, for that matter.

Then perhaps you need to read more of IrishMelkite’s posts.

Under the current rules in place in the CCEO, the pope is a kind of Archpatriarch; he is to patriarchs as patriarchs are to bishops.

But that relationship, too, is based on some vague ideas…

 

[XtusVictor]

Then perhaps you need to read more of IrishMelkite’s posts.

Under the current rules in place in the CCEO, the pope is a kind of Archpatriarch; he is to patriarchs as patriarchs are to bishops.

But that relationship, too, is based on some vague ideas…

It is true. I am new here. I used to read a lot on the Byzantine Forum. It is very very anti Catholic. It is just a means to proselytize Eastern Catholics into going Orthodox. So, yes, my experience of the Melkites and the Orthodox is fairly brutal. Still, I have not read anything here that has changed my opinion.

 

[jimmy]

It is true. I am new here. I used to read a lot on the Byzantine Forum. It is very very anti Catholic. It is just a means to proselytize Eastern Catholics into going Orthodox. So, yes, my experience of the Melkites and the Orthodox is fairly brutal. Still, I have not read anything here that has changed my opinion.

Yeh, because you have an anti eastern position and your only goal in these discussions is to proseletize easterners into western Christianity. You find the existence of eastern Catholics to be offensive because they do not agree with you. And this disagreement you interpret to be anti Roman because it is not the position that the pope makes. I am very much anti those who wish to make eastern Catholics into western Catholics.

 

[Apotheoun]

Great thread!

I – as an Eastern (Ruthenian) Catholic – agree completely with the Melkite Holy Synod’s endorsement of the Zoghby Initiative.

Thus, with the Melkites, I say that: I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches, [and] I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

 

[Seamus_L]

And it should be pointed out that in his 1996 comments concerning the Zoghby Initiative, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stated in his letter to Patriarch Maximos V. Hakim that

On the question of communion with the Bishops of Rome, we know that the doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has experienced a development over time within the framework of the explanation of the Church’s faith, and it has to be RETAINED in its ENTIRETY, which means from its origins to our day. One only has to think about what the first Vatican Council affirmed and what Vatican Council II declared, particularly in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium Num. 22 and 23, and in the Decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio Number 2.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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

Bummer, it’s always something.

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.

Well, that would explain why it’s not in my Byzantine Book of Prayers.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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.

The Church of Rome’s primacy was founded upon the fact that both Peter and Paul were martyred there. It is not simply because Peter founded it. If that were the case then Antioch could claim the same primacy because they claim Peter as their first bishop.

I sorry if I seem dense, but I still don’t quite see it. I can understand Saint Paul and his helping to found the Church of Rome. But I’m quite confused on his role in the Petrine Ministry.

Anyway, do you think that this is an important enough issue to debate about? I am not sure if I do.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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.

I can agree with the entirety of the Church helping to pass on the faith to the next generation. In the domestic Church (that is the family), one of the primary obligations of the parents is to teach their children the faith. In the local Church - it is the Bishop who has the primary role of teacher.

I just can’t see the role of the laity in the official formulation of the Faith - that is involved in the Councils and Episcopal Declarations.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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.

I don’t know your feelings on this (many Eastern Christians don’t seem to like this analogy), but the analogy I am thinking of is that of a monarchy. Not that the Pope is a king - no, he is not. The King is Jesus. And the Pope is His vicar - that is Jesus has bestowed upon his vicars (there is really more than just one) his authority. The Pope is the chief vicar in charge of the entire kingdom and the Bishops are likened to vicars of particular sections of the kingdom (though an analogy of vasselship is inappropriate here). The Bishops have the authority over their section and over larger sections of the kingdom when in council with other Bishops. The Pope has a higher hierarchial standing (someone mentioned the notion of Archpatriach). The important thing to know, is that with any monarchy, it depends a lot on the monarch. He must be a good and holy man to use the authority granted him for the good and service of the kingdom. Many times we have good Popes who do just that. But at times we get bad Popes who put their desires before the needs of the Church - but compared to other monarchies in history, I think we have a good batting average. The King will prevent His vicar from binding the Church in error, but that doesn’t stop a Pope from being a jerk (to put it mildly).

I hope I didn’t forget anything and explained my thoughts well and clear enough.

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

Indeed, one of the Pope’s titles is Servant of the Servants of God. I always see the Pope’s Primacy as a usage of that commission to strengthen the brethren and confirm them in their faith, to feed the sheep.