Question about the Melkite Catholic Church

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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.

Like I mentioned in a post or two ago, I just can’t see the laity as having the authority to declare official teaching.

As the Ravenna Document says:

1. The ecumenicity of the decisions of a council is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short duration, according to which the people of God as a whole – by means of reflection, discernment, discussion and prayer - acknowledge in these decisions the one apostolic faith of the local Churches, which has always been the same and of which the bishops are the teachers (didaskaloi) and the guardians. This process of reception is differently interpreted in East and West according to their respective canonical traditions.

I think this may be our different perspectives on the matter, and as the document says “This matter needs to be studied further in our future dialogue” (no. 36)

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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.

Does that mean we are limited to no more than 52 Ecumenical Councils?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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…

That is an excellent description - and one that I would (and have) use. That is how I see the hierarchial nature of the Papacy.

 

[jimmy]

Hello,

That is an excellent description - and one that I would (and have) use. That is how I see the hierarchial nature of the Papacy.

But with that description you still need to define the role of a patriarch. In the east a patriarch does not have universal jurisdiction within his patriarchate. A patriarch does not have greater authority than a regular bishop. He is first among equals basically within the patriarchate. There might be certain roles that he plays within the synod. When it comes to a vote in the synod he has one vote as any other bishop.

I think this may be our different perspectives on the matter, and as the document says “This matter needs to be studied further in our future dialogue” (no. 36)

Yes it is a different perspective on the matter that must be talked about in the ecumenical discussions. The west does not take this perspective.

Like I mentioned in a post or two ago, I just can’t see the laity as having the authority to declare official teaching.

It is not that simple but the laity do have a role in it. You must remember that even in the west there is one class of people within the Church. The Church is made up of the baptises Christians. The bishops and priests and deacons do not make up another class of the Church.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

James,

You have made some excellent additions in this thread, especially your last comments.

I have mostly been silent because there have been so many comments that I should only echo at this point.

The Melkite Greek Catholic Church and many of the clergy who are pro-authentic eastern traditions have said as much.

Sadly, we do not always live these traditions out. We have alot to work for, but the support and authentic Theology/Ecclesiology has been set by the trailblazers of our Church.

It is certain that we will return to our authentic traditions when reunification comes.

As pointed out by both His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I reunification is the will of God. We all must be working for this!

The way the Melkites have done this is a return to her authentic traditions. Anything else makes us a stumbling block.

 

[Ghosty]

But with that description you still need to define the role of a patriarch. In the east a patriarch does not have universal jurisdiction within his patriarchate. A patriarch does not have greater authority than a regular bishop. He is first among equals basically within the patriarchate. There might be certain roles that he plays within the synod. When it comes to a vote in the synod he has one vote as any other bishop.

I would point out that this is only the case in Eastern Orthodoxy; in Oriental Orthodoxy the Patriarch (or Catholicos) is most definitely higher than other Bishops. According to the African Canons, for example, a Patriarch can only be deposed by another Patriarch.

It used to be closer to this in Eastern Orthodoxy as well, with the Patriarch of Constantinople even ruling over the Patriarchate of Antioch (part of the split between the Melkite Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church is related to this, as the elected Patriarch of Antioch and his Synod joined the Catholic Communion, while the Greek Constantinople-appointed Patriarch remained connected with Constantinople), but this changed over time.

The only reason I bring this up is that it’s easy to paint with too broad a brush when referring to “the East” when in fact what we’re talking about is “the modern practice of part of the East”.

As for those who are attacking the Melkite Church, I recommend that you actually take the time to spend among the Melkites in order to see how things really are. Some posters have assumed that the Melkite Church is almost polemical against the Catholic Communion, and this couldn’t be further from the truth. Despite the strong stance on maintaining the Byzantine tradition, the Melkites are among the least polemical of the Byzantine “cultures”. Yes there is a struggle sometimes to balance Communion with authenticity to tradition, but this rarely manifests as polemics within the Melkite Church; any presentation of the Melkite Church as a “vanguard of schismatics” within the Catholic Communion is thoroughly off-base.

Remember, if the Melkite Church took the radical polemical stance that is being presented by certain Latin posters, then it would not still be in the Catholic Communion. Serving as an Eastern (Byzantine) voice in the Catholic Communion, and attempting to preserve or ensure Eastern prerogatives is NOT an attack on Rome or anyone else, but the simple manifestation of authentic Catholic tradition.

It can be difficult to understand this dynamic from the outside, first because it’s a foreign culture and approach to most Catholics (who are predominantly Latin), but also because even within the Byzantine East the Melkite Church has a unique history; you simply can’t map the Eastern European Catholic/Orthodox polemics, conflicts, and personalities on to the Melkites. When you start attending Melkite Divine Liturgy and half the people in the parish are Antiochian Orthodox who are happily members of the community, you’ll begin to understand the dynamic of the culture a little bit better, and understand why the Melkite Church takes the position it does.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jj2011]

I would point out that this is only the case in Eastern Orthodoxy; in Oriental Orthodoxy the Patriarch (or Catholicos) is most definitely higher than other Bishops. According to the African Canons, for example, a Patriarch can only be deposed by another Patriarch.

It used to be closer to this in Eastern Orthodoxy as well, with the Patriarch of Constantinople even ruling over the Patriarchate of Antioch (part of the split between the Melkite Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church is related to this, as the elected Patriarch of Antioch and his Synod joined the Catholic Communion, while the Greek Constantinople-appointed Patriarch remained connected with Constantinople), but this changed over time.

The only reason I bring this up is that it’s easy to paint with too broad a brush when referring to “the East” when in fact what we’re talking about is “the modern practice of part of the East”.

As for those who are attacking the Melkite Church, I recommend that you actually take the time to spend among the Melkites in order to see how things really are. Some posters have assumed that the Melkite Church is almost polemical against the Catholic Communion, and this couldn’t be further from the truth. Despite the strong stance on maintaining the Byzantine tradition, the Melkites are among the least polemical of the Byzantine “cultures”. Yes there is a struggle sometimes to balance Communion with authenticity to tradition, but this rarely manifests as polemics within the Melkite Church; any presentation of the Melkite Church as a “vanguard of schismatics” within the Catholic Communion is thoroughly off-base.

Remember, if the Melkite Church took the radical polemical stance that is being presented by certain Latin posters, then it would not still be in the Catholic Communion. Serving as an Eastern (Byzantine) voice in the Catholic Communion, and attempting to preserve or ensure Eastern prerogatives is NOT an attack on Rome or anyone else, but the simple manifestation of authentic Catholic tradition.

It can be difficult to understand this dynamic from the outside, first because it’s a foreign culture and approach to most Catholics (who are predominantly Latin), but also because even within the Byzantine East the Melkite Church has a unique history; you simply can’t map the Eastern European Catholic/Orthodox polemics, conflicts, and personalities on to the Melkites. When you start attending Melkite Divine Liturgy and half the people in the parish are Antiochian Orthodox who are happily members of the community, you’ll begin to understand the dynamic of the culture a little bit better, and understand why the Melkite Church takes the position it does.

Peace and God bless!

According to strong popes like Damasus, St. Innocent I and Leo the Great, the Antiochene patriarchate is the third see in Christendom-- hardly chopped liver.

I believe also that a detailed history of the Antiochene patriarchate would show that there were Melkite patriarchs who professed submission to Rome even before the union of 1724.

 

[Magicsilence]

I would point out that this is only the case in Eastern Orthodoxy; in Oriental Orthodoxy the Patriarch (or Catholicos) is most definitely higher than other Bishops. According to the African Canons, for example, a Patriarch can only be deposed by another Patriarch.

It used to be closer to this in Eastern Orthodoxy as well, with the Patriarch of Constantinople even ruling over the Patriarchate of Antioch (part of the split between the Melkite Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church is related to this, as the elected Patriarch of Antioch and his Synod joined the Catholic Communion, while the Greek Constantinople-appointed Patriarch remained connected with Constantinople), but this changed over time.

The only reason I bring this up is that it’s easy to paint with too broad a brush when referring to “the East” when in fact what we’re talking about is “the modern practice of part of the East”.

As for those who are attacking the Melkite Church, I recommend that you actually take the time to spend among the Melkites in order to see how things really are. Some posters have assumed that the Melkite Church is almost polemical against the Catholic Communion, and this couldn’t be further from the truth. Despite the strong stance on maintaining the Byzantine tradition, the Melkites are among the least polemical of the Byzantine “cultures”. Yes there is a struggle sometimes to balance Communion with authenticity to tradition, but this rarely manifests as polemics within the Melkite Church; any presentation of the Melkite Church as a “vanguard of schismatics” within the Catholic Communion is thoroughly off-base.

Remember, if the Melkite Church took the radical polemical stance that is being presented by certain Latin posters, then it would not still be in the Catholic Communion. Serving as an Eastern (Byzantine) voice in the Catholic Communion, and attempting to preserve or ensure Eastern prerogatives is NOT an attack on Rome or anyone else, but the simple manifestation of authentic Catholic tradition.

It can be difficult to understand this dynamic from the outside, first because it’s a foreign culture and approach to most Catholics (who are predominantly Latin), but also because even within the Byzantine East the Melkite Church has a unique history; you simply can’t map the Eastern European Catholic/Orthodox polemics, conflicts, and personalities on to the Melkites. When you start attending Melkite Divine Liturgy and half the people in the parish are Antiochian Orthodox who are happily members of the community, you’ll begin to understand the dynamic of the culture a little bit better, and understand why the Melkite Church takes the position it does.

Peace and God bless!

Hmm, Hi Ghosty (+ Happy Christmas!),

I have read this thread with interest, and am slightly confused. Jimmy has stated clearly that the East (at least the Melkites) have no need of papal infallibility.

While I am usually sympathetic to your presentation of East - West relationships at a grass-roots level, I cannot help but feel you are acknowledging a system of dual belief for the sake of peace.

Papal infallibility is either a central tenet of Melkite belief or not. If it is not (as appears to be the case), then there is a severe problem, not so much with the rejection of the teaching in itself (history does witness to a certain degree of doubt regarding it), but for the rejection of authority which it presumes.

If the Melkites can reject Papal infallibility, and presumably other roles of the papacy, and the ‘Western’ Ecumenical Councils on the basis of an appeal to Eastern patristic tradition, then to my mind, it implies a faith identical to that of Eastern Orthodoxy, which to be sure, is anti-Catholic (but no more than the Catholic Faith is anti-Orthodox).

I do not know why the Melkites remain Catholic while having an anti-Catholic faith, and it also seems to bear witness to the fact that the East and West are firmly divided even if communion between Churches has brought about union in this present day and age .

As a Maronite, I accept everything in the CCC. Can the same be said of the Melkites?

In Jesus Christ,

 

[jimmy]

If the Melkites can reject Papal infallibility, and presumably other roles of the papacy, and the ‘Western’ Ecumenical Councils on the basis of an appeal to Eastern patristic tradition, then to my mind, it implies a faith identical to that of Eastern Orthodoxy, which to be sure, is anti-Catholic (but no more than the Catholic Faith is anti-Orthodox).

I do not know why the Melkites remain Catholic while having an anti-Catholic faith, and it also seems to bear witness to the fact that the East and West are firmly divided even if communion between Churches has brought about union in this present day and age .

As a Maronite, I accept everything in the CCC. Can the same be said of the Melkites?

In Jesus Christ,

Read the Zogbhy initiative. The Melkites have the same faith as the Eastern Orthodox. The Zhogby inititiative said the Melkites believe all that the Orthodox believe but they are in communion with Rome. You are the one who interprets the eastern faith as anti Catholic. That is not how the Melkites interpret it. The Melkites view Orthodox faith as true Catholic faith and I would agree with them.

As a Maronite I hold to Maronite tradition.

 

[Hesychios]

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!!

Hello Magic,

I would like to comment as an interested outside observer. You may (and should) feel free to disagree with these thoughts of mine, with which I only attempt to broaden the perspective, if possible…

…it implies a faith identical to that of Eastern Orthodoxy, which to be sure, is anti-Catholic…

I am not going to agree here.

It is fundamentally impossible for an Orthodox Christian of any sort to be anti-Catholic. I would say that it could possibly be termed anti-Ultramontane. Which (Ultramontane) to my thinking is a party of thought existing within the Catholic church.

I think possibly that the Melkites are in communion with Rome because they see it as a right and an obligation, not as a privilege.

I do not know why the Melkites remain Catholic while having an anti-Catholic faith, and it also seems to bear witness to the fact that the East and West are firmly divided even if communion between Churches has brought about union in this present day and age .

Again, it is fundamentally impossible. But there they are, which means your basic assumptions must be wrong. What you and some others might be bearing witness to is the unreadiness of the Roman Catholic church to accept Orthodox as equals. At least that much is revealed by these numerous posts about them.

I think the problem here is that UltraMontanism had hijacked the Roman Catholic church in recent times (although it’s influence…once strong… is definitely waning) and it has convinced many within the Catholic communion that it’s interpretation of what it means to be a Catholic is THE ONE interpretation.

I disagree (of course). I think that it is an encouraging sign that many Eastern Catholics (even prelates!) are feeling confident enough to express an independent (not original) line of thought, one very much in keeping with an earlier position of their churches. They are not really alone, RC bishops and even Cardinals have been known to express disagreement with some results of the Ultramontanist line of thinking. Even recent Popes seem to have been seeking a way around some of the UltraMontanist absolutes which have hamstrung their work, if I am interpreting their actions correctly.

Why do such individuals stubbornly remain in communion with Rome? I guess because they believe that it is important. You can (and many do) make all kinds of thrilling arguments about the importance of being in communion with the bishop of Rome, and people will listen intently.

But if you think that they will automatically follow a line of reasoning from that point to Universal Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as defined in 1870 you have a much harder case to make. The one does not really follow the other automatically.

Quite clearly, the Melkite Orthodox church was not asked (in the 18th century, when everything came together) to submit to Universal Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. They simply came into communion. UltraMontanism was not yet in full flower. The Papal doctrines, when expressed at all, were theologumena, held by some but not everyone.

The Melkite Orthodox of Antioch could not be forced into this decision, or coerced in any legal way. They did this thing because they very much wanted to. It split the synod, a huge sacrifice on their part…being divided from nearly half of their brothers and neighbors.

It was a great tragedy for those Orthodox Melkites who could not go with them, out of conviction. Everyone lost something in the transaction. It is truly sad.

The deal they accepted was not the one Pius IX attempted to impose upon them later. They accepted an ideal where they still thought of themselves as Orthodox, still did not teach the filioque (nor teach against it, they ignored it not out of respect “for the west” but out of hope in Christs’ prayer that all may be one), and did not teach purgatory or indulgences. But they, unlike Orthodox elsewhere, were in communion with Rome.

Even they, relative newcomers to the Roman Communion, have still a longer history in communion before Vat I than afterward, with a continuous fully formed concept of their own ecclesiology which spans all of the centuries back before those days.

What happened in the Vatican Council 145 years later (from circa 1724AD or so) was nothing less than a “bait and switch” scheme from that perspective. Their Patriarchs seem to have exercised Patriarchal prerogatives to insulate their people from the worst effects of it as best they could, for as long as they could.

Make no mistake about it, like you I too must sometimes wonder why any of the Melkites are still in Communion with Rome. Especially after what has transpired in the Communion these last 14 decades.

But in them I see great possibilities.

 

[mgy100]

Rome will not and can not renounce papal infallibility. Unity is up to the Orthodox and will likely only happen after several more centuries. Even if the doctrinal issues could miraculously be overcome, the Orthodox faithful will reject reunion because of their deep-seated anti-Catholicism.

When prejudice is so deep that an Orthodox priest will not even acknowlege a Catholic priest, shake his hand, speak to him or even look at him, there is something so wrong and such a prevailing spirit of animosity that little can be done. When Eastern Catholic call the pope a liar and a fraud, how can there be union with the Orthodox?

What are you talking about? Give us examples. Your brush is mighty wide and the picture you are painting is vague.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

As a Maronite, I accept everything in the CCC. Can the same be said of the Melkites?

Light for Life is a pan-eparchical, pan-byzantine effort of the Catholic Churches of the byzantine tradition. It is our Catechism and it expresses our Theology.

I was created in response to the Catechism called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or CCC. The CCC, sadly, is really only the Roman Catholic Catechism and does not properly express our Theology.

It is my hope that you, as a Maronite would recognize this as well.

 

[Magicsilence]

Read the Zogbhy initiative. The Melkites have the same faith as the Eastern Orthodox. The Zhogby inititiative said the Melkites believe all that the Orthodox believe but they are in communion with Rome. You are the one who interprets the eastern faith as anti Catholic. That is not how the Melkites interpret it. The Melkites view Orthodox faith as true Catholic faith and I would agree with them.

As a Maronite I hold to Maronite tradition.

Jimmy, I did qualify the ‘anti-Catholic’ label. The EO reject the role of the pope as head of Christ’s Church, and are anti him.

Where you take communion to mean a group of Churches with different beliefs being together, I take it to mean a group of Churches with one belief, but differently expressed.

The ‘return to Eastern patristic tradition’ does not equate to a rejection of Catholic ecclesiology.

Surely you can see something wrong with the statement - the Melkites view the Orthodox faith as the true Catholic faith. Why not the Catholic faith to which they belong?

In Jesus Christ,

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy, I did qualify the ‘anti-Catholic’ label. The EO reject the role of the pope as head of Christ’s Church, and are anti him.

Where you take communion to mean a group of Churches with different beliefs being together, I take it to mean a group of Churches with one belief, but differently expressed.

The ‘return to Eastern patristic tradition’ does not equate to a rejection of Catholic ecclesiology.

Surely you can see something wrong with the statement - the Melkites view the Orthodox faith as the true Catholic faith. Why not the Catholic faith to which they belong?

In Jesus Christ,

Because they view the Orthodox faith to be the Catholic faith which they belong. Therefore they view the Orthodox faith as truely Catholic in every sense of the word.

I do not say we have different beliefs. But I also follow my own tradition. I will not change my tradition so that I seem more Catholic and more like the west. The west is not the standard for true theology.

Western ecclesiology does not supercede eastern patristic ecclesiology just because the west says so. The Church can not contradict its history. We are to hold to our tradition.

 

[yeshua]

As a Maronite, I accept everything in the CCC. Can the same be said of the Melkites?

The CCC, sadly, is really only the Roman Catholic Catechism and does not properly express our Theology. It is my hope that you, as a Maronite would recognize this as well.

Forgive my interruption, but I believe it is important to note that the CCC is now being recognized and acknowledged by Maronite hierarchy, even in the diaspora (gasp) as “insufficient” to meet the needs of not only the Maronites, but other Eastern Churches. In fact, there is a renewed effort to follow the words of HH Pope John Paul II in Oriental Lumen in establishing a Directory of Eastern Catholic Catechisms, though, again, this has taken a back seat effort due to the chaos in the homeland.

I spent Christmas with a small Lebanese community and their Maronite priest yesterday. He gave me a copy of Abouna Salim’s Captivated By Your Teachings, which in its preface expresses its intention on being created in HH’s image of being apart of an Eastern Catholic Catechism Community. With my conversation with Abouna about Abouna Salim’s book (they are close friends), it was expressed that the publishing company, a Roman Catholic company, severely edited the book for what it found “anti-Catholic” (which in all fairness is their right as a private business).

Nevertheless, the work produced was still just enough to express the Maronite tradition, albeit loosely. You can read how he had to stretch and express the same ideas without the right to express so frankly or truthfully. Anyway, this text is no longer being published, though it is still popular by this priest and others I have spoken to for Catechismal purposes. I suspect it was discontinued probably because of unpopularity by the Latin community, and I personally know that Abouna Salim is no longer in the diaspora. It breaks my heart that such an authentic and strong support for following HH’s words and creating a Catechism to solve the insufficiency of the CCC had to be met again with politics and triumphalism.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[jimmy]

Forgive my interruption, but I believe it is important to note that the CCC is now being recognized and acknowledged by Maronite hierarchy, even in the diaspora (gasp) as “insufficient” to meet the needs of not only the Maronites, but other Eastern Churches. In fact, there is a renewed effort to follow the words of HH Pope John Paul II in Oriental Lumen in establishing a Directory of Eastern Catholic Catechisms, though, again, this has taken a back seat effort due to the chaos in the homeland.

I spent Christmas with a small Lebanese community and their Maronite priest yesterday. He gave me a copy of Abouna Salim’s Captivated By Your Teachings, which in its preface expresses its intention on being created in HH’s image of being apart of an Eastern Catholic Catechism Community. With my conversation with Abouna about Abouna Salim’s book (they are close friends), it was expressed that the publishing company, a Roman Catholic company, severely edited the book for what it found “anti-Catholic” (which in all fairness is their right as a private business).

Nevertheless, the work produced was still just enough to express the Maronite tradition, albeit loosely. You can read how he had to stretch and express the same ideas without the right to express so frankly or truthfully. Anyway, this text is no longer being published, though it is still popular by this priest and others I have spoken to for Catechismal purposes. I suspect it was discontinued probably because of unpopularity by the Latin community, and I personally know that Abouna Salim is no longer in the diaspora. It breaks my heart that such an authentic and strong support for following HH’s words and creating a Catechism to solve the insufficiency of the CCC had to be met again with politics and triumphalism.

Peace and God Bless.

I thought Abouna Salim was in Cincinatti?

 

[yeshua]

I thought Abouna Salim was in Cincinatti?

According to the priest I spoke to last night, he currently isn’t in the country. Honestly, I do not know where the good priest is right now.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Ghosty]

Papal infallibility is either a central tenet of Melkite belief or not.

Show me where the Melkite Church denies Papal Infallibility and then we can have a proper discussion about what it means for them to deny it. When people simply quote the Zoghby Initiative’s statement that “we share the same Faith as the Eastern Orthodox”, they aren’t necessarily presenting the proper context for that statement; after all, the Latin Church makes similar statements about the Orthodox.

The actual text of the reunion proposal produced by the Melkite Synod, based on the Zoghby Initiative, says this:

4.The Joint Commission will discuss one point further, that is, the role of the Bishop of Rome in the church and in the ecumenical councils. On this subject the Fathers of the Synod adopt what was stated in the Second Vatican Council: to give due consideration to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before separation (Decree on Ecumenism #14); and also what His Holiness Pope John Paul II said in his encyclical That All May Be One - Ut Unum Sint (#61): The Catholic Church desires nothing less than full communion between East and West. She finds inspiration for this in the experience of the first millennium. Concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome the Fathers declare that they are inspired by the understanding in which East and West lived in the first millennium in the light of the teachings of the seven ecumenical councils, and they see that there is no reason for the separation to continue because of that primacy.

If the Melkite Church took a view on the Papacy identical to that of the Antiochian Orthodox Church then there would have been no reason to state officially, and in the very proposal for reunion, that the role of the Papacy still needed to be discussed. The real distinction of the Melkite position is that the role of the Papacy is not a sufficient question to warrant a lack of Communion, hence they were willing to go forward even with this issue yet-unsettled.

That being said, the Melkite Church obviously doesn’t take the “Pope as Emperor of the Faith” model of Papal Infallibility as a given (nor as acceptable). The understanding and exercise of Papal prerogatives must be conducive to Eastern sensibilities if there is to be any hope of reunion, or of maintaining the Catholic Communion itself. The Melkite Church strongly and vocally resists attempts to map the Latin Patriarchal model onto and over the whole Catholic Church, but that doesn’t mean an automatic rejection of Papal Infallibility or even of special ecclesial powers of the Bishop of Rome as it concerns the rest of the Catholic Communion.

Remember, if the Melkite Church so strongly disagreed with the Catholic position in its general sense then it would not remain in the Catholic Communion. Nothing but nothing is preventing the Melkite Church from up and leaving the Communion; it remains because it DOES recognize a role for Rome that is not currently recognized by the Eastern Orthodox; the question is whether or not this recognition constitutes a different Faith, and whether or not this different view is amenable to an authentic Eastern understanding. Obviously the Melkite Church believes that it does not make for a different Faith, and that Papacy can be reconciled with a truly Byzantine perspective; remember, this isn’t a Church of politically brow-beaten “Uniates” who found themselves on the wrong side of a border dispute, it’s a Church that came into the Catholic Communion with a rightfully elected Byzantine Patriarch and his Synod. If it sounds at times like an Eastern Orthodox Church that accepts the Catholic Communion, it’s because that’s precisely what it was and is.

What non-Melkites should be asking is not whether or not the Melkites are “truly loyal” to the Catholic Communion (if they weren’t they could and would leave), but how the Catholic Communion can best operate to allow for the healthy existence of Churches like the Melkite Church, since that’s going to be the road towards full Reunion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Magicsilence]

Show me where the Melkite Church denies Papal Infallibility and then we can have a proper discussion about what it means for them to deny it. When people simply quote the Zoghby Initiative’s statement that “we share the same Faith as the Eastern Orthodox”, they aren’t necessarily presenting the proper context for that statement; after all, the Latin Church makes similar statements about the Orthodox.

Hmm, it was Jimmy that made the claim.

If the Melkite Church took a view on the Papacy identical to that of the Antiochian Orthodox Church then there would have been no reason to state officially, and in the very proposal for reunion, that the role of the Papacy still needed to be discussed. The real distinction of the Melkite position is that the role of the Papacy is not a sufficient question to warrant a lack of Communion, hence they were willing to go forward even with this issue yet-unsettled.

Yet I would hazard a guess that clarity on this issue would have been demanded by the ‘Latins’, even if the Melkites didn’t want to focus on it. Do you know on what terms communion was agreed?

That being said, the Melkite Church obviously doesn’t take the “Pope as Emperor of the Faith” model of Papal Infallibility as a given (nor as acceptable). The understanding and exercise of Papal prerogatives must be conducive to Eastern sensibilities if there is to be any hope of reunion, or of maintaining the Catholic Communion itself. The Melkite Church strongly and vocally resists attempts to map the Latin Patriarchal model onto and over the whole Catholic Church, but that doesn’t mean an automatic rejection of Papal Infallibility or even of special ecclesial powers of the Bishop of Rome as it concerns the rest of the Catholic Communion.

You got me totally confused What is the Melkite position then? Papal infallibility - yes or no? Universal jurisdiction - yes or no? Final say over ecumenical councils - yes or no?

Remember, if the Melkite Church so strongly disagreed with the Catholic position in its general sense then it would not remain in the Catholic Communion. Nothing but nothing is preventing the Melkite Church from up and leaving the Communion; it remains because it DOES recognize a role for Rome that is not currently recognized by the Eastern Orthodox; the question is whether or not this recognition constitutes a different Faith, and whether or not this different view is amenable to an authentic Eastern understanding. Obviously the Melkite Church believes that it does not make for a different Faith, and that Papacy can be reconciled with a truly Byzantine perspective; remember, this isn’t a Church of politically brow-beaten “Uniates” who found themselves on the wrong side of a border dispute, it’s a Church that came into the Catholic Communion with a rightfully elected Byzantine Patriarch and his Synod. If it sounds at times like an Eastern Orthodox Church that accepts the Catholic Communion, it’s because that’s precisely what it was and is.

Yet, I’m not sure why the Melkites have to question the position and rights of the Petrine ministry. ‘Latin’ Catholic ecclesiology is well defined. Without being blunt, I wasn’t aware there was any other option than take it or leave it. I also have the feeling that ‘Eastern Catholic sensibilities’ are a ‘symbolic representation’ for a rejection of some part of the papacy and its workings. If not, to what does it attempt to pertain to do?

edit: To clarify; I believe, to be sure, that the way in which the Petrine ministry is exercised can be adapted as the structure of the Church changes, but that there remains at the core a set of teachings on the subject that are non-negotiable.

What non-Melkites should be asking is not whether or not the Melkites are “truly loyal” to the Catholic Communion (if they weren’t they could and would leave), but how the Catholic Communion can best operate to allow for the healthy existence of Churches like the Melkite Church, since that’s going to be the road towards full Reunion.

Peace and God bless!

What we are really asking here, is when Eastern Catholic tradition and Latin ecclesiology clash, which takes precedence?

God Bless Ghosty!

 

[jimmy]

What we are really asking here, is when Eastern Catholic tradition and Latin ecclesiology clash, which takes precedence?

God Bless Ghosty!

Latin theology, including ecclesiology, does not override eastern theology. If the Latin church took that perspective then they would be flat out wrong and I would openly tell you so. Again, Latin theology is not the standard. It never was in the first millenium so it is not now. It was the Greek theology which formed the first seven councils, not the Latin. The west has liked to make Latin the official language and culture of the Church but it is not.

You got me totally confused What is the Melkite position then? Papal infallibility - yes or no? Universal jurisdiction - yes or no? Final say over ecumenical councils - yes or no?

They view the patriarchs as being equal to the pope. There is a quote that has been posted on several threads in this forum by the Melkite patriarch that basically says this.

The Melkites believe there is a special place for Rome. But they also believe there is a special place for each church. The seek communion with all churches and find this a necessary thing. Communion with Rome is necessary but not because Rome is infallible or has universal jurisdiction. They would probably say that the Latins lose just as much through their lack of communion with the Greeks as the Greeks lose from their lack of communion with the Latins. Hence the title We Are All Schismatics for Zhogby’s book.