Question about the Melkite Catholic Church

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Originally Posted by jimmy

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.

I think the point I would make is - Rome is the standard of orthodox teaching (note, I didn't say Latin theology). To show what I mean by this, consider this example (note: no Orthodox or Eastern Catholic that I know believes this, but I use it merely for demonstration):

The Eastern Churches decry the Latin practice of belief in the Real Presence. It goes against our Eastern tradition and theology - it is merely a symbol (and a superficial one at that) and there is no way in any sense that this is the Body and Blood of Jesus. And don't dare try to latinize us into that belief. But it is Romes duty to correct this and say - you are wrong - the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Jesus. Now, there is nothing here that demands the usage of the thomistic understanding of transubstantiation (I would like to address acceptance as true of each others theology in another post), but there must be acceptance of the belief in the Real Presence (no matter how you express it). Such a belief is an essential belief that must be held by the Universal Church, no matter how it is expressed (and the universal beliefs can and are expressed in different manners). In this sense - Rome is the standard of catholic, orthodox belief for the Universal Church.

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner

As to Blessed Leo - he seemed more successful for a few centuries than it may look now.





Or viewed, past tense.

Again, 10+ years on, with that effort being rebuffed by Rome and the Antiochians, whatever the vote of the bishops then (several of whom are retired)... They made a good run at it, but that train seems to have run out of steam.

That is completely rediculous. The Melkites hold the same views they held ten years ago. You have offerend nothing to oppose what has been said. The Melkites have not repudiated what they have said in the past. Here is what the current Melkite Patriarch thinks.

H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!

From this post.

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....2&postcount=97

The Melkites are Antiochians so to say the Antiochians reject it is false since they have made clear that they affirm what Zoghby said.

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by JMJ_coder

Hello,



I think the point I would make is - Rome is the standard of orthodox teaching (note, I didn't say Latin theology). To show what I mean by this, consider this example (note: no Orthodox or Eastern Catholic that I know believes this, but I use it merely for demonstration):

The Eastern Churches decry the Latin practice of belief in the Real Presence. It goes against our Eastern tradition and theology - it is merely a symbol (and a superficial one at that) and there is no way in any sense that this is the Body and Blood of Jesus. And don't dare try to latinize us into that belief. But it is Romes duty to correct this and say - you are wrong - the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Jesus. Now, there is nothing here that demands the usage of the thomistic understanding of transubstantiation (I would like to address acceptance as true of each others theology in another post), but there must be acceptance of the belief in the Real Presence (no matter how you express it). Such a belief is an essential belief that must be held by the Universal Church, no matter how it is expressed (and the universal beliefs can and are expressed in different manners). In this sense - Rome is the standard of catholic, orthodox belief for the Universal Church.

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

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.

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by jimmy

That is completely rediculous. The Melkites hold the same views they held ten years ago. Do they? You have offerend nothing to oppose what has been said. See below. The Melkites have not repudiated what they have said in the past. Here is what the current Melkite Patriarch thinks.

H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents. From whence do these particular patriarchal perogatives hail?

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.From whence do these particular patriarchal perogatives hail?

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome. Where was patriarchy created? Does it have strictly apostolic origins? Do we scriptural mandate for patriarchates? Patriarchates along the lines of ethnicity and nationhood?

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches. Met. +BASIL should maybe claim patriarchal status? Maybe teh Met. Archbishop or Pittsburgh is no different from the See of Rome too?

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II. All things being equal, what about V2 or JP2's decrees need be applied?

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue. Is their a similar critique of the East - which has never been left for want of ill will against Rome in some sectors. What Eastern changes can or should be expected?

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology! Is outrage! Who's we?

From this post.

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....2&postcount=97

The Melkites are Antiochians so to say the Antiochians reject it is false since they have made clear that they affirm what Zoghby said.

You know full well what I meant by "Antiochians" if you do not, you are blinded by your ideologies.

To call it "rediculous" is "rediculous" given that Archbishop Cyril Salim Boustros, who succeeded Zoghby as bishop of Baalbek, allowed that while issues exist between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Holy See, that "we could not conclude that our forefathers committed a mistake by proclaiming their union to Rome."

Jimmy you are constant with your presentation of your perspective and your reading of the Fathers as being "THE" reading. (With the rest of us Eastern Catholics being hopelessly misinformed "Latiniacs" I suppose.) On your road to Orthodoxy (back in the day I debated with TR Valentine), you present their contradistinctive arguments with great and fantastic aplomb. For this consistency I give you props and you have my esteem for being nothing if not consistent.

But to paint and present the Fathers as being in utter and total agreement with your assessment is to well ignore the Catholic theologians and apologists, as well as the scores of Orthodox who have reconciled with the Holy See and Evangelicals who chose Rome based on the merits of reading the Fathers to/with/or for an understanding of the Papacy as Rome itself understands it.

I admire where you are, I was where once where you seem to be now. Going so far as to actually begin intruction with an EO priest at one point, I can appreciate your zeal. Allow at least as much latitude to we who are pro-papal, as you do various and sundry anti-papal eastern parties.

[Magicsilence]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner

You know full well what I meant by "Antiochians" if you do not, you are blinded by your ideologies.

To call it "rediculous" is "rediculous" given that Archbishop Cyril Salim Boustros, who succeeded Zoghby as bishop of Baalbek, allowed that while issues exist between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Holy See, that "we could not conclude that our forefathers committed a mistake by proclaiming their union to Rome."

Jimmy you are constant with your presentation of your perspective and your reading of the Fathers as being "THE" reading. (With the rest of us Eastern Catholics being hopelessly misinformed "Latiniacs" I suppose.) On your road to Orthodoxy (back in the day I debated with TR Valentine), you present their contradistinctive arguments with great and fantastic aplomb. For this consistency I give you props and you have my esteem for being nothing if not consistent.

But to paint and present the Fathers as being in utter and total agreement with your assessment is to well ignore the Catholic theologians and apologists, as well as the scores of Orthodox who have reconciled with the Holy See and Evangelicals who chose Rome based on the merits of reading the Fathers to/with/or for an understanding of the Papacy as Rome itself understands it.

I admire where you are, I was where once where you seem to be now. Going so far as to actually begin intruction with an EO priest at one point, I can appreciate your zeal. Allow at least as much latitude to we who are pro-papal, as you do various and sundry anti-papal eastern parties.

Great post,

There seems to be an enormous emphasis on what 'they' believe the Fathers of the Church to be saying, instead of what the Church is actually saying.

Same type of error as 'sola scriptura', only different

[Magicsilence]

Originally Posted by jimmy

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.

Hi Jimmy,

I am sure there are certain 'Arian Fathers' who would condemn some of the early Ecumenical Councils. The question is not, what do the ECF's teach?, but - which of them to trust?

And unless the answer is found in a living, visible hierarchy, Truth becomes one's own subjective opinion of one's own selection of ECF's.

I agree that some Eastern Fathers do not extol Rome any higher than the other patriarchs. But, I do not ignore the witness given by St John Chrysostom, St Maximus the Confessor, and countless others.

If the Melkites want to claim their own vision for the Catholic Church based on their own interpretation of tradition, . To me, it's not how the early Church functioned.

In Jesus Christ,

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner

You know full well what I meant by "Antiochians" if you do not, you are blinded by your ideologies.

To call it "rediculous" is "rediculous" given that Archbishop Cyril Salim Boustros, who succeeded Zoghby as bishop of Baalbek, allowed that while issues exist between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Holy See, that "we could not conclude that our forefathers committed a mistake by proclaiming their union to Rome."

Jimmy you are constant with your presentation of your perspective and your reading of the Fathers as being "THE" reading. (With the rest of us Eastern Catholics being hopelessly misinformed "Latiniacs" I suppose.) On your road to Orthodoxy (back in the day I debated with TR Valentine), you present their contradistinctive arguments with great and fantastic aplomb. For this consistency I give you props and you have my esteem for being nothing if not consistent.

But to paint and present the Fathers as being in utter and total agreement with your assessment is to well ignore the Catholic theologians and apologists, as well as the scores of Orthodox who have reconciled with the Holy See and Evangelicals who chose Rome based on the merits of reading the Fathers to/with/or for an understanding of the Papacy as Rome itself understands it.

I admire where you are, I was where once where you seem to be now. Going so far as to actually begin intruction with an EO priest at one point, I can appreciate your zeal. Allow at least as much latitude to we who are pro-papal, as you do various and sundry anti-papal eastern parties.

I don't think any Melkite would disagree with the statement of archbishop Cyril that it was not a mistake to declare union with Rome. Otherwise they would be Eastern Orthodox and not in communion with Rome. He is not disagreeing with his predecessor here.

I think the Antiochian Orthodox rejection of the Melkite position is irrelevant and obvious because if they did not reject it they would be in communion with Rome like the Melkites.

I don't declare the west to be wrong in their tradition and teaching. I believe that both east and west have maintained the faith. The problem I have is when the west forces its interpretation of the faith on the east.

I am not anti papal, I just interpret union with the Church of Rome to be different than the west does. I still proclaim that it is necessary to be in communion with Rome, but for different reasons or with a different logic than you do.

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by Magicsilence

Hi Jimmy,

I am sure there are certain 'Arian Fathers' who would condemn some of the early Ecumenical Councils. The question is not, what do the ECF's teach?, but - which of them to trust?

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

And unless the answer is found in a living, visible hierarchy, Truth becomes one's own subjective opinion of one's own selection of ECF's.

I don't deny that there is a heirarchy.

I agree that some Eastern Fathers do not extol Rome any higher than the other patriarchs. But, I do not ignore the witness given by St John Chrysostom, St Maximus the Confessor, and countless others.

If the Melkites want to claim their own vision for the Catholic Church based on their own interpretation of tradition, . To me, it's not how the early Church functioned.

In Jesus Christ,

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.

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by JMJ_coder

Hello,

Where can one read (online, I hope) the full text of the Zoghby Initiative?

The best source which expresses the official Melkite Synodal position is here. I think you'll find it much more carefully measured than what is typically thrown around in these discussions.

Again, you'll notice that they leave the question of precisely what the role of Rome was in the First Millenium quite open, and neither claim that the strictest Orthodox views are correct, nor back the strictest Catholic views, but rather state that a basis can be found for Communion through careful understanding of First Millenium prerogatives. They uphold what has been said by Pope John Paul II, and continually refer to his statements regarding the role of Rome.

Take it for what it's worth.

Jimmy:

He can not simply reject canons like St. Leo the Great tried to do with canon 28 of Chalcedon.

Then who is protecting the Church from the tyranny of the majority? Either the Pope is granted a particular role of unification, or he is not. If he is not then he has no place whatsoever, not even as a "Patriarch among Patriarchs", because such a title is utterly and completely meaningless without something real underneath it.

I would also caution against taking too seriously certain modern Eastern Orthodox claims that a Patriarch is simply an equal among Bishops; this was not so even just a hundred years ago. Prior to Florence the Patriarch of Constantinople appointed the Metropolitan of the Russians, and appointed the Patriarch of Antioch after the elected Patriarch and his Synod joined the Catholic Communion in 1724, and Greeks dominated the Antiochian Patriarchate for over two centuries following that event.

Even today there is no consensus among the Eastern Orthodox about the particular role of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and this has led to a break-down of Catholic-Orthodox discussions on the Orthodox side for two years running (with the Russian Orthodox Church being the sole dissenters against the idea of Constantinople having a special place of importance among the Eastern Orthodox Churches). One of the major difficulties in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue right now remains the question of just what a Patriarchate entails, and if one is greater than another. Until this issue is settled among the Eastern Orthodox we can't speak of an "Eastern Orthodox position" on the matter, and we certainly can't speak of a historically consistent one since at one time the Patriarch of Constantinople was appointing Bishops, and even Patriarchs, for other Churches.

None of this is to say that most "ultra-montane" Catholic view is correct, but rather only to remind everyone that this isn't a settled issue on either side, least of all among the Eastern Orthodox. Rome needs to change the application of "Papal Authority" certainly, and even a few consecutive Popes have stated as much, but the "model" of the Pope being nothing but another Bishop with one vote does not square with history; not with the history of the First Millenium, and not even with relatively recent history within Eastern Orthodoxy regarding the Patriarch of Constantinople (again, the question of precisely what the Pope's role is beyond being "one Bishop with one vote" is a matter of ongoing discussion). These facts can't be overlooked in the dialogue, else we'll end up getting nowhere even with formal agreements.

Peace and God bless!

[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]

Originally Posted by jimmy

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.

[/quote]

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]

Originally Posted by LakaYaRabb

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]

Originally Posted by LakaYaRabb

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]

Originally Posted by Magicsilence

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.