Question about the Melkite Catholic Church

[LakaYaRabb]

Ghosty,

James has made some good points regarding eastern ecclesiology and the Melkite Church. The past 500+ years has left us, especially the Eastern Catholics, with concerns, not about the tyranny of the majority, but the tyranny of the minority. We should all heed the urgings of Ut Unum Sint as Rony pointed out earlier: the east has to have a role in formulating how the peterine minstry cooperates with the east. This means not an abandoning of eastern ecclesiology, but a cooperation with it. Since, regarding the East of the Byzantine tradition (from whence the Melkites come) the Patriarchal ministry is of utmost importance, a cooperation of peterine and patriarchal ministry will not respectiviely dominate one another.

As for the Ecumenical Patriarch appointing other Patriarchs, that whole debacle was ahistorical and wrong. The Current practice among the Church of Antioch is the more ancient. That is, the Holy Synod elevating one of its Bishops to the Patriarchal ministry.

 

[Magicsilence]

Would any Catholic consider Sts. John Chrysostom, John Damascene, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Gregory Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, Ephrem, Aphrahat, and etc. to be heretics?

You are missing the point I was trying to make. I am not questioning any of these confirmed fathers of the Church, or their sainthood. But, it is in reaction to their articulation of the Catholic faith, that their status as ‘fathers’ came into being.

There also existed other men, teaching subtle heresy, whose literary works are just as exhaustive as these fathers you have already mentioned. Yet time has forgotten them. Why should we not look to these men for help and teaching of the Catholic faith? Because the Church told us otherwise and still continues to do so.

In picking and choosing the Fathers you want to follow, you are finding ECF statements that back your own position, and nothing more.

I don’t deny that there is a heirarchy.

But, you reject the papacy.

The Melkites have a heirarchy. It is not simply Rome that judges the truth for what it is. Rome even recognizes that the Eastern Orthodox have held to the faith and have had the right to call councils and declare heresy to be heresy even though they did not have communion with Rome. Truth is not for Rome alone. These are not simply opinions of a few random Christians.

This idea of two Churches, each correct, but completely incompatible, is intellectual madness. Truth is for all, but when all have abandoned it, it is Rome who will still defend it.

Peace and Blessings,

 

[Magicsilence]

This means not an abandoning of eastern ecclesiology, but a cooperation with it. Since, regarding the East of the Byzantine tradition (from whence the Melkites come) the Patriarchal ministry is of utmost importance, a cooperation of peterine and patriarchal ministry will not respectiviely dominate one another.

LYR,

The position of Patriarch is (for lack of a better term) man made, whereas our belief in the papacy is that it is an office given to Peter by our blessed Lord.

The dominance of the Petrine ministry is therefore a literal truth, although the exercising of that Truth should always be carried out in humility.

Isn’t this Melkite position simply that of the Eastern Orthodox?

For, if they accept the papacy as it is now, there should be no need for initiatives. And, if they do not accept it, then it usually means a position of ‘first among equals’ is being posited.

In Jesus Christ,

 

[LakaYaRabb]

The position of Patriarch is (for lack of a better term) man made, whereas our belief in the papacy is that it is an office given to Peter by our blessed Lord.

This is where you and I differ. All the disciples are successors of Saint Peter. Even still, the Apostolic Authority rests within the Bishops, not just the roman successor of Saint Peter.

If you really believe what you stated, that does not make you Catholic, it makes you Roman Catholic. Your formulation of the Roman Papacy leaves little room for any real recognition of a Church unless it is the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox position ends up being right: Eastern Catholics really are Roman Catholics.

 

[Magicsilence]

This is where you and I differ. All the disciples are successors of Saint Peter. Even still, the Apostolic Authority rests within the Bishops, not just the roman successor of Saint Peter.

If you really believe what you stated, that does not make you Catholic, it makes you Roman Catholic. Your formulation of the Roman Papacy leaves little room for any real recognition of a Church unless it is the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox position ends up being right: Eastern Catholics really are Roman Catholics.

We differ because I believe the Petrine office to be applicable to all members of the Catholic Church, and you only the Roman.

Does Eastern patristic tradition give any Eastern Church the right to reject the papacy, and claim Catholic belief in the subject to be entirely Roman in nature? Of course not.

The Catholic belief in the papacy is certainly over-dramatised by the Eastern Churches, but knocking down your own straw man and claiming that what tenets of Truth it was attempting to articulate are therefore also to be rejected is bonkers.

One cannot be Catholic and split from Rome. I am sure you disagree.

 

[jimmy]

We differ because I believe the Petrine office to be applicable to all members of the Catholic Church, and you only the Roman.

Does Eastern patristic tradition give any Eastern Church the right to reject the papacy, and claim Catholic belief in the subject to be entirely Roman in nature? Of course not.

They don’t give the pope universal jurisdiction and infallibility either so your question is meaningless because it has no bearing on Greek or Syriac Christian patristics. The origin of the papacy as it is is a western development.

The Catholic belief in the papacy is certainly over-dramatised by the Eastern Churches, but knocking down your own straw man and claiming that what tenets of Truth it was attempting to articulate are therefore also to be rejected is bonkers.

One cannot be Catholic and split from Rome. I am sure you disagree.

For you Rome is the definition of Catholicity. But that was not the case for the fathers of the Church and that is not the case in the east.

 

[Seamus_L]

In his letter to Maximos V Hakim, Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger in 1996 reaffirmed the teaching of Papal Infallibility as defined at the 1st Vatican Council. The Zoghby Initiative is a rejection of what Catholicism teaches, not to mention the fact that it calls the union which took place between certain Eastern Churches and Rome a mistake ! The fact that 24 out of 26 Melkite bishops subscribed to the Zoghby Initiative, makes me ask the question, Why are we in communion with the Melkites ?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

For you Rome is the definition of Catholicity. But that was not the case for the fathers of the Church and that is not the case in the east.

Again with the ***“Thus sayeth the East!” ***speak.

And says whom? The world seems totally dark and wet on a boat in a storm-tossed sea in the middle of the night. If you are garnering all of your information on what it is to be Eastern or read the ECF from anti-papal/non-papal sources, you are likely to see the world in that fashion.

You speak

• with such near-compelling certitude that your reading about/of the ECF is THE singular authentic eastern reading of the ECF and,
• as though there is no appeal to or affirmation of patristics in the pro-papal parties

Not as definitive proof of patristic support in and of itself, don’t you find it a little curious and telling that of the 1000+ Evangelicals and mainline pastors in the US who have become Catholic, more than a small percentage of them have cited study of the ECF as leading them to the Catholic Church?

The idea that there is no support for the pappacy as understood and offered today among the ECF is problematic. If you disagree with what the assesment of the pro-papal parties offer, that is one thing… But don’t make it to sound like it is so utterly foreign and without possibility of foundation that we all just pulled it out of our ear.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

It is obvious that from the 12 pages of discussion, there is nothing productive left to discuss. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church made a big push, utilizing the Zoghby Initiative, for reunification. This was in response to the Balamand Statement which condemned uniatism.
Obviously, the East and the West have not achieved unification. The Zoghby Initiative was not repuidiated by the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Though some Melkite Bishops and Archbishops may offer a differing interpretation of the Initiative, their interpretations were not taken up officially by the Holy Synod of the Melkite Church. Zoghby’s were. This is especially evident from many different statements of His Beatitude Gregorios III and others in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.
This leaves our discussion at an empasse because ecumenical talks continue between Rome and the respective Churches of the tradition from whence the Melkite Catholics come. While the discussions have no binding authority yet, they represent the official dialogue with the intent of unification of East and West. This reunification is the Will of God according to the Current Pope of Rome, His Holiness Benedict XVI and the current Ecumenical Patriarch His All Holiness Bartholomew I.
The repudiation of the Eastern ecclesiology of synodality will necessarily remain intac is a real communion will ever be reached. Synodality and Patriarchal ministry are inseperable. The real question is how the Pope of Rome will fit. Futhermore, how will any Pope fit, for instance, the Pope of Alexandria?
A most important concern is that while we are expected to not repudiate the Pope of Rome, how will this then play out when eastern ecclesiology is not repudiated? The Balamand statement condemned the uniate model which included a partial repduiation of eastern ecclesisology. The Melkites respond with an authentic return to her ecclesiological traditions. IN fact, the Melkites have always fought to maintain the patriarchal ministry. This is what they signed off on at Florence, this is a resaon for becoming uniates, this is the reason they left VAtican I and only signed it later with the addition, this is why we feel Vatican II vindicates the Patriarchal ministry.
IN light of these very real and historical circumstances, it is no wonder His Beatitude said what he said at the Holy Synod. It is certainly no wonder why we gave the world of ecumenism the Zoghby Intiative, either.

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty,

James has made some good points regarding eastern ecclesiology and the Melkite Church. The past 500+ years has left us, especially the Eastern Catholics, with concerns, not about the tyranny of the majority, but the tyranny of the minority. We should all heed the urgings of Ut Unum Sint as Rony pointed out earlier: the east has to have a role in formulating how the peterine minstry cooperates with the east. This means not an abandoning of eastern ecclesiology, but a cooperation with it. Since, regarding the East of the Byzantine tradition (from whence the Melkites come) the Patriarchal ministry is of utmost importance, a cooperation of peterine and patriarchal ministry will not respectiviely dominate one another.

No disagreement from me on this at all, though I’m sure you knew that.

The Petrine Ministry belongs to the whole Catholic Church, not simply to the Latins to wield over the rest of the Communion when it gets “unruly”. This is why an Eastern voice is absolutely critical in determining the proper exercise of the Papacy, even apart from any chance of Reunion with our separated brothers and sisters.

As for the Ecumenical Patriarch appointing other Patriarchs, that whole debacle was ahistorical and wrong. The Current practice among the Church of Antioch is the more ancient. That is, the Holy Synod elevating one of its Bishops to the Patriarchal ministry.

My point is simply that is was indeed part of history, and quite a long stretch of history at that. There has not been a consistent “Eastern Orthodox” mode of operation, and there is disagreement even today. There have been times and places in which Patriarchs appointed Bishops, and other times when the locals elect the Bishops, and yet other times when the political masters, even Muslims and atheists (!) have put hierarchs in power. To speak of an “Eastern Orthodox” ecclesiology is a bit fanciful, IMO, if only because we’ve not seen a consistent approach in history, and in each period there has been a different “accepted norm”.

This isn’t meant to put a value judgment against the current Eastern Orthodox opinions on how the Church should be run (and we should remember that there are some rather deep divides on this issue even today within Eastern Orthodoxy, as apparent with the current relationship between Moscow and Constantinople), but to give much needed perspective. It is incorrect to suggest that there is a tried and true Eastern Orthodox model, just as it’s incorrect for Latins and other Catholics to suggest that a “Papal-Imperial” model has always been the way of the Catholic Communion.

I personally feel that all of us too easily fall into the hardened polemical positions of our day rather than accepting the fact that both sides are still muddling through the proper running of the Church of Christ, and it’s this fact that makes our Reunion necessary on a human level as well as a theological level; we must admit that neither side has done it’s utmost best at preserving the Church from blunders and turmoil.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

In his letter to Maximos V Hakim, Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger in 1996 reaffirmed the teaching of Papal Infallibility as defined at the 1st Vatican Council. The Zoghby Initiative is a rejection of what Catholicism teaches, not to mention the fact that it calls the union which took place between certain Eastern Churches and Rome a mistake ! The fact that 24 out of 26 Melkite bishops subscribed to the Zoghby Initiative, makes me ask the question, Why are we in communion with the Melkites ?

Read the actual document: it never denies Papal Infallibility, nor does it reject the special place of Rome. In fact it repeatedly re-states that Rome holds a special place. It simply also puts forward Pope John Paul II’s assertion (which the Melkite Church is in full agreement with) that the Papacy does not need to be run the way it is currently, and that manner of operation that is conducive to both Eastern and Latin approaches and needs must be sought.

In the initiative the Melkite Synod left the exact role of Rome as an open question left to discuss jointly with the Antiochian Orthodox, not because the Melkite Church was leaving the Catholic fold, but specifically to follow Pope John Paul II’s exhortation to work out the best way to handle the Papacy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

It is obvious that from the 12 pages of discussion, there is nothing productive left to discuss. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church made a big push, utilizing the Zoghby Initiative, for reunification. This was in response to the Balamand Statement which condemned uniatism.
Obviously, the East and the West have not achieved unification. The Zoghby Initiative was not repuidiated by the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Though some Melkite Bishops and Archbishops may offer a differing interpretation of the Initiative, their interpretations were not taken up officially by the Holy Synod of the Melkite Church. Zoghby’s were. This is especially evident from many different statements of His Beatitude Gregorios III and others in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.
This leaves our discussion at an empasse because ecumenical talks continue between Rome and the respective Churches of the tradition from whence the Melkite Catholics come. While the discussions have no binding authority yet, they represent the official dialogue with the intent of unification of East and West. This reunification is the Will of God according to the Current Pope of Rome, His Holiness Benedict XVI and the current Ecumenical Patriarch His All Holiness Bartholomew I.
The repudiation of the Eastern ecclesiology of synodality will necessarily remain intac is a real communion will ever be reached. Synodality and Patriarchal ministry are inseperable. The real question is how the Pope of Rome will fit. Futhermore, how will any Pope fit, for instance, the Pope of Alexandria?
A most important concern is that while we are expected to not repudiate the Pope of Rome, how will this then play out when eastern ecclesiology is not repudiated? The Balamand statement condemned the uniate model which included a partial repduiation of eastern ecclesisology. The Melkites respond with an authentic return to her ecclesiological traditions. IN fact, the Melkites have always fought to maintain the patriarchal ministry. This is what they signed off on at Florence, this is a resaon for becoming uniates, this is the reason they left VAtican I and only signed it later with the addition, this is why we feel Vatican II vindicates the Patriarchal ministry.
IN light of these very real and historical circumstances, it is no wonder His Beatitude said what he said at the Holy Synod. It is certainly no wonder why we gave the world of ecumenism the Zoghby Intiative, either.

I have nothing to add to this excellent post, other than to say that we’re still waiting with high hopes (hopes that I don’t believe will be dashed) on the full implementation of Vatican II.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Magicsilence]

I personally feel that all of us too easily fall into the hardened polemical positions of our day rather than accepting the fact that both sides are still muddling through the proper running of the Church of Christ, and it’s this fact that makes our Reunion necessary on a human level as well as a theological level; we must admit that neither side has done it’s utmost best at preserving the Church from blunders and turmoil.

Peace and God bless!

Strangely enough, I thought that I would never disagree with you Ghosty, but alas

I don’t see this as a split in Christ’s Church, with each side running around blindly without the other’s help.

I see the split giving rise to two forms of Church governance. Depending on whose side one decides to fall, it is appropriate that one view it as being Christ’s Church.

From where I stand, any compromise on the ecclesiology of either side reveals serious misgivings about the antiquity and ‘Truth full ness’ of the respective position.

If the Melkite position seeks to clarify the Petrine office and the way in which it is exercised, I have no objections.

But if it challenges certain aspects in addition to this, including the origin, power or privileges that the Roman Pontiff possesses, then I object on both an intellectual level, and with regard to the implications it has on the validity of Latin Catholic teaching.

If the Melkite position therefore seeks to redefine or change that which is now held to be ‘de fide’ in the Catholic Church, I can only see further schism to come. In addition, I cannot help but be confused and dismayed at the attitude of the Melkites, which is esentially - “the RC’s are wrong, the EO are wrong, and we have all the answers”.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[LakaYaRabb]

Ghosty,

What else can I add, brother?

Magicsilence,

If the Melkite position seeks to clarify the Petrine office and the way in which it is exercised, I have no objections.

And that’s all that’s left to get across in my mind.

 

[Magicsilence]

Magicsilence,

And that’s all that’s left to get across in my mind.

So, can you affirm papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, and the power over ecumenical councils?

 

[LakaYaRabb]

???

If you can explain what you mean according to Eastern Catholic theology in the context of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, I would be happy to comment. But wasn’t that what the last 12 pages were about anyway.

I simple yes or no will not do. I hope you realize that by now.

 

[Magicsilence]

???

If you can explain what you mean according to Eastern Catholic theology in the context of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, I would be happy to comment. But wasn’t that what the last 12 pages were about anyway.

I simple yes or no will not do. I hope you realize that by now.

It’ll do fine for me.

E.g. - An Ecumenical Council has no force unless it is ratified by the pope. Agree or disagree?

This really has little to do with Eastern theology vs Western theology and fitting in, even if the Patriarchs have traditionally maintained a prominent role within the Melkite community.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The problem I have with your example JMJ is that it assumes that what we are professing as eastern Catholics is simply our opinions.

No, I am saying that whatever the Eastern Churches professes in belief through their viewpoint must conform with the Universal beliefs of the Church (the same with the Latin Church and theology).

But what we are doing is submiting to the tradition that was handed on from the Greek and Syriac fathers. If the Greek and Syriac fathers did not believe in Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction who is Rome to define these as dogma?

Ummm…well, then who decides if their (or your) interpretation of the Eastern Fathers and tradition is correct?

If, taking your example, the Greek and Syriac fathers(who were certainly orthodox in every sense of the word and this can not be denied) clearly did not believe in the Real Presence then Rome would have no right to make it dogma.

If any person (whether they be Church Father or layman) denied the Real Presence, they’d be a heretic - pure and simple.

The faith is not just found in Rome, it is universal and it is contained within all cultures which the Church has penetrated. Rome can not contradict the tradition of the Church. They can not simply define a dogma because they believe it.

Actually, Rome does have the authority to bind the Universal Church - Jesus Christ gave Peter and his successors of Rome that authority. And Rome is the only See that is guaranteed to remain free from the stain of heresy and thus is the standard and foundation of unity as countless Church Fathers have attested to.

I think it is acceptable to say Rome is the standard as long as Rome does not feel the need or the right to define dogma. They continually define new dogmas and isolate the Latin tradition from the others. They continually differentiate it from the eastern traditions.

Isn’t that like saying - Rome can pretend to be in charge as long as Rome doesn’t actually try to exercise that authority.

Let me ask you Jimmy, what do YOU see as the role of the Papacy? What jurisdiction does the Pope have? What authority is granted the Pope? What is the role and authority of a Patriarch in his Church?

 

[LakaYaRabb]

An Ecumenical Council has no force unless it is ratified by the pope. Agree or disagree?

A new can of worms…
I’m going to be quite honest. This whole thread really seems to have yielded very little, except the various places Ghosty and I have agreed (which made my day!). I just don’t have the stamina to keep up with all this.

I am a great sinner with little knowledge. Please forgive this sinner any transgression and let him retire from this thread with no further comments. :byzsoc:

 

[ASimpleSinner]

A new can of worms…
I’m going to be quite honest. This whole thread really seems to have yielded very little, except the various places Ghosty and I have agreed (which made my day!). I just don’t have the stamina to keep up with all this.

I am a great sinner with little knowledge. Please forgive this sinner any transgression and let him retire from this thread with no further comments. :byzsoc:

Via con Dios, mi hermano!

Retire. Relax. Regroup. Rebuild. Return.