E
East_and_West
Guest
Great question!
- Status
A
Aramis
Guest
With a really simple answer:
They have accepted and continue to accept the elements of Catholic Dogma as required by their treaty of union.
E
East_and_West
Guest
But what is the point of being in communion with some one who professes a different faith?
M
Magicsilence
Guest
Do you know where one may examine this treaty and the conditions agreed?
My knowledge of the history of Eastern Catholic specifics is a little dogged
.In Jesus Christ,
A
Aramis
Guest
Because their faith is close enough!
The church defines dogmas, and states that they must be believed.
An individual, no matter how weird, who believes those things as prescribed, and doesn’t believe anything anathematized, is now, and remains a Catholic.
When a particular church comes into union, so long as it holds the same, it is held to no lesser standard than the individual… that is, holding to what the church has deemed dogma, and avoiding what the church has anathematized.
And no, I don’t know where to find the treaty for the Melkites. I could point you to ByzCath.org for the Ukrainians…
G
Ghosty
Guest
I’m not even sure that there was such a “Treaty” for the Melkites. The circumstances of the Melkite Church entering Communion with Rome are unique, and as I said earlier it wasn’t a matter of a few Bishops entreating Rome for Communion, nor was it the result of various cultural and border disputes that made the choice of Union with Rome more expedient.
So far as I know it was much more a matter of the ancient Byzantine Patriarchate of Antioch entering Communion with Rome (with the obvious fall-out of many people and clergy NOT wanting to enter such a Communion, and instead entreating Constantinople for support). In other words it was more like a reversal of the previous breaking of Communion than something new being forged, and as a result there wasn’t so much need of “clarifications” and theological hammering-out of issues. The Melkites maintained the Byzantine-style Faith that they had held prior to the split, and this has always been recognized as being “orthodox” by Rome.
I submit this understanding to the correction of those who know better, as my knowledge of this is based mostly on the apparent absence of any information about specific “treaties” and such.
Peace and God bless!
So far as I know it was much more a matter of the ancient Byzantine Patriarchate of Antioch entering Communion with Rome (with the obvious fall-out of many people and clergy NOT wanting to enter such a Communion, and instead entreating Constantinople for support). In other words it was more like a reversal of the previous breaking of Communion than something new being forged, and as a result there wasn’t so much need of “clarifications” and theological hammering-out of issues. The Melkites maintained the Byzantine-style Faith that they had held prior to the split, and this has always been recognized as being “orthodox” by Rome.
I submit this understanding to the correction of those who know better, as my knowledge of this is based mostly on the apparent absence of any information about specific “treaties” and such.
Peace and God bless!
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
1724 Cyril VI was elected patriarch of Antioch. He had been pro-Western (links between the Levantine Christians and the West were growing). Instead of sending his confirmation to Constantinople (where centralization was underway), he sent it to Rome (a more far off master). Constantinople (and the Ottoman) response was to impose Greeks on the patriarchate of Antioch
from the phanar, which continued for nearly three centuries. Once the dust settled, the one (Melkites) went for more independence and local control, the other (Orthodox) got sucked further into the centralization of the millet system under the Ottomans. The Faithful were the same in both camps: Arab Syrians. With the reestablishment of the Arab Orthodox hierarchy, it seems that the Melkite-Orthodox split has been the least traumatic in the history of the uniates, the boundaries in many ways being very fuzzy, because no dramatic traumatic split ever occured.
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
The circumstances described by my brothers, Ghosty and Isa, are essentially an accurate description of the union between what would become the “Melkite Catholics” (in that time and for some period thereafter, the usage “Melkite Orthodox” was not uncommon) and Rome.
I would only add that a few predecessors to Cyril VI had given consideration to union and one or two probably went so far as to enter it, at least tentatively, but subsequently withdrew or failed to finalize the process - whether for differences in theology or ecclesio-political considerations. Certainly, one or two could be easily considered - on the face of historical documentation - to have effectively maintained, albeit briefly, dual communion with Rome and Constantinople (It may be a likelihood that seems bizarre and unlikely to us, but actually occurred in various circumstances from time to time, and in diverse places). There are indications that one patriarch may have been assassinated as a consequence of suspicion that he might be entertaining such a union.
Subsequent to Cyril’s election and in the succeeding three-quarters of a century, there were indeed instances of outright physical aggression between the two parties, as well as blatant politicking on both sides to gain the favor of civil authorities. However, as Isa notes, our history indeed lacks the broad-scale aggressiveness, hostilities, and force applied under color of conversion that form the regretable (but true) horror tales endlessly recounted by both sides in the East European nations.
Certainly, the preliminary union of Eftimios Saifi, of blessed memory, Melkite Archeparch of Tyre & Saida, founder of the Basilian Salvatorian Order, and uncle to Cyril VI, paved the way for the latter’s overture to Rome (albeit it was about 1731 before Rome finally and formally accorded communion to Cyril, if I remember correctly). Further supporting the idea that there was not a formal “treaty” in the nature of those effected at Brest and Uzhorod, is that Father Cyril Charon, of blessed memory, in his painstakingly (sometimes painfully) detailed history of the Melkite Patriarchate makes no reference to any such document. Given that he was able to delve deeply into the Vatican Archives (a task facilitated by Cardinal Tisserant’s patronage of his work), it seems unlikely that he overlooked such.
I agree with Isa that this history significantly colors the modern-day relationship between the Antiochians and Melkites, with neither side having the “fear” of the other or exercising the competitiveness toward one another that so often characterizes the Slav Churches, Catholic and Orthodox. The common external pressures of being Christians in a Muslim-dominated region undoubtedly contributed as well.
Many years,
Neil
I would only add that a few predecessors to Cyril VI had given consideration to union and one or two probably went so far as to enter it, at least tentatively, but subsequently withdrew or failed to finalize the process - whether for differences in theology or ecclesio-political considerations. Certainly, one or two could be easily considered - on the face of historical documentation - to have effectively maintained, albeit briefly, dual communion with Rome and Constantinople (It may be a likelihood that seems bizarre and unlikely to us, but actually occurred in various circumstances from time to time, and in diverse places). There are indications that one patriarch may have been assassinated as a consequence of suspicion that he might be entertaining such a union.
Subsequent to Cyril’s election and in the succeeding three-quarters of a century, there were indeed instances of outright physical aggression between the two parties, as well as blatant politicking on both sides to gain the favor of civil authorities. However, as Isa notes, our history indeed lacks the broad-scale aggressiveness, hostilities, and force applied under color of conversion that form the regretable (but true) horror tales endlessly recounted by both sides in the East European nations.
Certainly, the preliminary union of Eftimios Saifi, of blessed memory, Melkite Archeparch of Tyre & Saida, founder of the Basilian Salvatorian Order, and uncle to Cyril VI, paved the way for the latter’s overture to Rome (albeit it was about 1731 before Rome finally and formally accorded communion to Cyril, if I remember correctly). Further supporting the idea that there was not a formal “treaty” in the nature of those effected at Brest and Uzhorod, is that Father Cyril Charon, of blessed memory, in his painstakingly (sometimes painfully) detailed history of the Melkite Patriarchate makes no reference to any such document. Given that he was able to delve deeply into the Vatican Archives (a task facilitated by Cardinal Tisserant’s patronage of his work), it seems unlikely that he overlooked such.
I agree with Isa that this history significantly colors the modern-day relationship between the Antiochians and Melkites, with neither side having the “fear” of the other or exercising the competitiveness toward one another that so often characterizes the Slav Churches, Catholic and Orthodox. The common external pressures of being Christians in a Muslim-dominated region undoubtedly contributed as well.
Many years,
Neil
A
Alexius
Guest
It seems to me that the dilemma is becoming clearer. If memory serves me right, the Melkites joined with the understanding that it would be as it was before the schism. Rome seems to have agreed. That means that the Patriarch would be viewed as equal to the Pope, the doctrines and councils of Rome post-schism would be for Latin rites, and the theology and praxis would remain Orthodox. If this is so, then the Pope lacks the universal authority he now has, am I right? It seems he does not have immediate jurisdiction over the Melkites. Following that thought, any doctrine declared outside an Ecumenical Council is null and void. To top that off, the Pope cannot have a unique infallibility, because that is reserved for councils. In fact, he can’t have any infallibility.
What about the declarations of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception? I thought it was said that the majority of Melkites were against these teachings, but they lacked the strength among the numerous Latins…
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
What about the declarations of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception? I thought it was said that the majority of Melkites were against these teachings, but they lacked the strength among the numerous Latins…
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
S
Seamus_L
Guest
I think I need to re-phrase my question to, in light of what was defined at the 1st Vatican Council, why are the Melkites still in communion with Rome ?
I apologize for sounding like I'm going off on an anti-Melkite tirade, but quite frankly I doubt more than a tiny minority of Catholics are aware of the extreme negativity with which highly respected bishops such as Elias Zoghby regard are church with. And if anyone believes I'm exaggerating Bishop Zoghby's position, I recommend you do an online search for Vatican I- A Pseudo Council ? by Archbishop Elias Zoghby.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I wouldn’t call it negativity. As in family, one will learn the Truth from those who care the most, even when it hurts deeply at first…because if they don’t tell you, you may not ever know or be willing to accept. The important difference is, in family the truth comes with innocent love.
Remember that little story…“The Emperors New Clothes”? Perhaps what is need is a pair of innocent eastern eyes.
Michael
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Find me some innocent unbiased Easterners… We will go from there.
Seperating authentic and ancient traditions from that which have been tacked on in the last 500 years is tough to do on both sides.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Rather unusual answer Hesychios, in light of the fact that in your profile you list yourself as a member of the OCA.
G
Ghosty
Guest
As I said before in this thread, Sayedna Elias’ views on the First Vatican Council are his own and not the official position of the Melkite Church. Others may agree with him to a greater or lesser extent, but he doesn’t speak for the Melkites as a whole under any circumstances. He’s been known as a man who will voice his own viewpoint even when it goes against the rest of the Catholic Church, or even his own particular Church, but he is also well respected as being well educated and a great servant of the people.
The Latin Church has FAR worse desenters than Sayedna Elias, even among the Bishops, so he’s a rather small issue all things considered.
Peace and God bless!
A
Alexius
Guest
I would definately be Melkite if there was a parish within a reasonable drive, but there isn’t. In fact, the closest one is in the next state…
A
Alexius
Guest
It is a difficult thing. I mean, many of the councils were specified to Latin formulas of faith. That is not to say that they are to be ignored by the East, but it’s almost like a buffet. Many like to pick and choose, some just have a drink, others eat all they can…
It seems many of the councils declared dogmas specific to Latin theology. Let me ask: When they declared such doctrines as Purgatory with Latin tones, did the really consider reunion? If so, then aren’t Easterners responsible for every iota of the doctrine? Hard to say. I mean, they obviously were in the midst of discussions and it seems Purgatory was a requirement…
I guess that begs the question: How much of the 9-21 councils are the Easterners responsible for? Only that which they participate? Only that which they want?
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
G
Ghosty
Guest
The question of Purgatory, for example, was most clearly defined at Trent using Latin terms, but the teaching of cleansing after death goes back to the ancient Fathers. All Catholics are responsible for upholding the teaching of purification after death, whether explicitly or implicitly, and I know of no Eastern tradition that doesn’t uphold this teaching (what tradition doesn’t offer Liturgies for the dead, or do good works on their behalf?)It is a difficult thing. I mean, many of the councils were specified to Latin formulas of faith. That is not to say that they are to be ignored by the East, but it’s almost like a buffet. Many like to pick and choose, some just have a drink, others eat all they can…
…
I guess that begs the question: How much of the 9-21 councils are the Easterners responsible for? Only that which they participate? Only that which they want?
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
On the other hand, nobody is responsible for upholding the specific trappings of these definitions, not even the Latins. It is hardly mandatory for Latins to believe in a literal “fire” in Purgatory, even though Western Councils used such terminology at times to define Purgatory. It is for this reason that the Catholic Church can say that we hold the same Faith with the Oriental Orthodox concerning the nature of the Incarnation; the Orientals use the “miaphysite” terminology and approach, while the Eastern and Latin Catholics use the “duophysite”, terminology and approach, yet we confess the same Faith upheld by Chalcedon that Christ was one Person, both human and Divine.
The only reason we use specific theological models and terminology is because our human minds must convey theological ideas in ways we can understand, and that requires systems and formulas. This doesn’t mean that a given approach is best suited for every theological question, and no human mode of understanding can ever encapsulate God. In every Dogma we are bound by the Truth underlying the terminology, not the human terms themselves.
Non-Latin Catholics must take seriously those things formulated in the West, even if the approach isn’t part of their tradition. Likewise, Latins must take seriously those things upheld in the East even when they aren’t expressed in a manner consistent with Latin tradition. For example, no one in the West can deny that we have a real participation in the Divine despite the fact that this hasn’t been formally defined as such in the West. In the East, however, this was a central controversy that required clarification by Council, and hence the Palamite debates. The issue simply never came up in the West, however, and no Catholic theologians denied that Grace is a real participation of Divinity (the Council of Trent dealt with the issue in an off-hand manner because it related to debates against the Protestants, but it wasn’t a direct issue as it was during the Palamite Councils).
So no Latin can deny real participation in the Divine because it is a Catholic Truth; a Truth defined in the East while never having been a dogmatic issue in the West. It’s binding in the West simply by weight of Tradition, where in the East the Tradition was in dispute; should it ever become an issue in the West I’m sure we’d look to the Eastern Councils for guidance on the matter. Likewise the non-Latin Catholics should take very seriously everything taught at Trent, not because there was a Protestant Reformation in the East, but because it represents a Catholic response to such an event.
IMO, the whole question of what is “binding” and what isn’t is a rather silly obsession, as if we can simply ignore those things that don’t fit neatly into our modern categories. It smacks of the very legalism that many non-Latins accuse Latins of all the time, in fact. I prefer to say that all Churches in Communion must uphold the same Faith, no matter the differences in approach or expression, and sometimes this means that certain issues are simply left in the shadows, not because of utter disregard, but rather because of general inapplicability; they can be regarded as being implicitly upheld by virtue of Communion, without the need of explicit adherence to alien theological approaches.
As for matters of “dispute”, I think that polemics have no place within a Communion. A Latin has no place denying theosis as a heresy, and a Byzantine Catholic likewise has no place decrying the filioque; our traditions may approach these issues from wildly different directions, but we can’t be in Communion while accusing each other of heretical errors.
Peace and God bless!
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
This is so much gnosticism? If you are not us, you don’t understand “our thing”?
It isn’t that we don’t understand some of the contradistinctives and quasi-polemics that get thrown down in the name of Melkite Easternization, its that we have legitimate disagreement.
But to act as though picking up any number of different texts or arguments offered by non-Catholic authors is the way to learn about being “eastern”…
Or to act as though Catholic thought on the papacy was done without reference to Patristics and the east and that Eastern Fathers are the domain and custody of parties in Orthodoxy that dismiss, discount or decry the papacy is unfair and ill considered.
Reading the very same texts, Catholics and converts thereto find arguments for the papacy just the same as those who are not Catholic do not.
To be against the papacy and the predominant Roman understanding of ecclesiology is not a hallmark of being Eastern. It may well be and in fact mostly is a hallmark of anti-papal Orthodox parties… But I argue that tenant is an innovation.
A
Alexius
Guest
Thank you, Ghosty for your (name removed by moderator)ut! Happy New Year!
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
H
Hesychios
Guest
- Status