Melkite and Roman Catholic


Got it - I can use Eastern words to try to describe things, but only insofar as I am totally Latin in what I actually believe.

In accordance with John 15:26, I believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is given to the Church by the Son.


If that’s the case, what is the point of a diocesan bishop?

Forgive me if I have I have a hard time believing that. The Eastern Catholics lament the latinizations they’ve undergone and the struggle to return more fully to their Eastern roots. Further, it’s not without some seriousness that we Orthodox give credit to Archbishop John Ireland for there being an Orthodox Church in the lower 48 states due to his rather unkind reaction to the Eastern Catholics in his midst.


The Church, East and West, have their own theological expression. Because for centuries Rome thought itself as the only true Church the doctrinal pronouncements of the Church of Rome were often labeled as “dogmatic,” but in actuality, they were only particular to the Church of Rome. So, not everything Roman Catholics consider “dogmatic” really is. As long as there is agreement on the level of the theologia prima (the Theotokos is sinless), variety in the theologia secunda (the Wests understanding of the Immaculate Conception) is acceptable and, in all actuality, desirable. This is why, I, as a Byzantine Catholic, have not problem accepting the Roman Catholics understanding of the IC or Purgatory. As long as the Church of Rome does not push these ideas on us.

We are in communion with one another (Byzantine Catholics and Latin Catholics) and share the same faith but, communion does not mean we are “rites” of the Roman Catholic Church. We are not Roman Catholics with a different “Mass.” Vatican II did away with that idea. We are our own Churches, with our own ecclesiastical heritage. Often times people thing that a “rite” is only that of a liturgical patrimony. It’s much more. Our liturgy reflects the fullness of our Tradition (spirituality, theology, etc.).

Again, these are “dogmatic” pronouncements of the Church of Rome. I think you need to read more about what Rome teaches about the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. By the way, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) wrote, Ratzinger wrote that, “Rome must not require more from the East than had been formulated and what was lived in the first millennium,” and, “Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox in the form she has always had.”



The Eastern Catholic and Orthodox do believe in the Real Presence. We just choose not define what is happening as the West had done. It’s like what @Isaac14 said, are you saying we can use our Eastern words, just as long as we believe like a Latin? This is “Uniatism” and the Catholic Church is strongly against that!



Thankfully we have the Chieti Document which shows us how the Church worked at the local, regional and universal level and although, at the universal level, the bishop of Rome did occupy first place among the bishops, exercising a primacy of hounor, “Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.”



But but but that document is not magesterial!!!

Turning off the sarcasm, I see folks keep asserting that, as though the Catholic theologians would actively ignore their own faith while discussing with the Orthodox. Sheesh.



Your 100% right!



Jesus nornour lady had fallen natures.

Even in the Catholic coneption she had the possibility of sin just like Adam and Eve. However neither her nor our Lord had concuspicence. This is a very significant difference.

Yes Blessed Pius IX consulted the bishops of the world before it was dogmatised.


You must be Catholic in what you believe. Bare in mind in the first millennium the Greeks were formulating the dogmas to be held by the church in their own theological language. The Latins did not quibble and say “these are Greek teachings”. Rather they said “it is true and so we believe”. Calling filioque or transubstantiation latin beliefs is like calling then Trinity a Greek belief. It’s purely nonsensical. It doesn’t matter what tradition of the church formulated it. If it’s true, it must be believed. It’s as simple as that.

We are talking about the internal eternal relations not temporal. As in the relations being spoken of in the creed from whence each person gets their divinity.


That’s because the pope isn’t the ordinary of a the diocese, but rather is to patriarchs, what patriarchs are to bishops.

The authority exists so that in the midst of a crisis he could step in legitimately and fix a problem without question. To question his authority at the universal level also has effects in that you can go on to question why have patriarchs when there are bishops? Why have bishops when there are priests?

The whole answer to all three is the same answer for the reason the pope has legitimate universal authority. At each level someone must be able to overrule and protect the faith legitimately against those who subvert it or cause scandal. An equal authority cannot do that.

Most Latinizations were actually self imposed by easterners. Sad as that might be. No pope ever called for them. Not a single one.


Your right. In many cases latinizations were self imposed. Why? To look “Catholic” because Americans, then and now, know nothing of the Catholic East. But, as @Isaac14 has stated, the Orthodox Church grew here in the U.S. mainly due to the doings of Archbishop Ireland. I have some Orthodox friends who kid with me and say that every Church should have his icon. It’s all in jest

You are also right, since Leo XIII, Rome has called the Eastern Churches to get ride of latinizations as well as return to our ancient and venerable ecclesiastical heritage. To quote Orientalium Ecclesiarium, “The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.” This is saying that the Church is not only Roman. Another quote, same document, “The Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church.” Our traditions as Easterners are part of the “heritage of the universal Church.” Again, the Church is not only Roman.



The fact of the matter is the Latin Church was the church as the whole east went into schism at various periods. Bare in the the east is bigger than the Byzantine tradition.

By your reasoning, the church hasn’t had a dogmatic definition since the 2nd ecumenical council (as the first major schism occurred at the 3rd).

If the church could dogmatically bind despite the Assyrian and Oriental schism, why couldn’t she dogmatically define once the Greeks left? What’s so special about the Greeks that church lost its ability to universally define that the orientals and Assyrians didn’t have?

If the church was still the church after the Assyrians left and later after the orientals left at the 4th council then surely she was still the church after the Byzantines lefts. Thus dogmatic definitions of the church after 1054 were truly universal dogmatic definitions as she alone was the church.


I have never said you are rites. I have just simply made the crazy statement that as Catholics we must believe the same thing to truly claim we are the same religion.

They were pronouncements of ecuemnical councils. Could the Latins turn around to any of the 7 councils and say those were pronouncements of the Eastern churches since the Latins practically weren’t there at any of them?

Just so you know, Eastern Catholic Churches accept all 21 councils.

So in other words the east would believe the same as the west? Which is what I have been saying this whole time lol


Ziapueblo let’s just get to the bottom of this so my point can be made:

Do you believe Papal infallibility is true?

Do you believe Papal Universal jurisdiction is true ?

Do you believe the Immaculate conception is true?

Do you believe the Filioque is true?

A simple yes or no will do as truth is universal and not relative/subjective. It is either true for all or true for none.

Also do you believe the definitions that brought about these teachings were dogmatic?


Melkite bishop John Elya wrote:

The truth is one, although interpreted in different ways, depending on where you stand. However, the same object could not be white for you and black for me, and we still pretend that we are both right. East and West see reality under different angles sometimes, in complicated manners hard to explain here in short terms. Some people enjoy finding differences, and other (as I try to do as often as I can) focus on what unites us rather than on what separates us. In all cases, if we are Catholic, then we have to accept all Catholic dogmas.

You are right to think that " we are one of many Eastern autonomous Churches (self-governing) as the Ukrainians, the Ruthenians and other self-governing (sui juris) Eastern Catholic Churches. We hold that the Pope of Rome is infallible in important matters of faith and morality, when he speaks “ex cathedra”, in his position as the visible head of the Catholic Church. We may interpret these dogmas in “Eastern” terms; however, we are not allowed to deny their truth without breaking the bond of unity with the Pope of Rome, the successor of St. Peter the Rock.


This is exhibit #1 of why the Orthodox are leery of Rome - Self-appointed arbiters of truth doubting the faith of your own fellow Catholics and pressing them to express everything through the Latin understanding.


I haven’t asked him to express anything in a latin understanding. I’ve just asked him if he believes in certain teachings of the church. What you are asserting is just untenable and doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying that If i has asked him if he believed in the Holy Trinity it would be me be imposing a latin understanding. No I’m would simply be asking him if he believed in a teaching of the church. If I asked if he believed that God is one substance in three persons and existing coeternally in order of relation … that would be imposing a latin understanding as I wouldn’t just be asking if he believed a teaching but if he believed it as Latins formulate it.

If I was imposing a latin understanding I would be asking him is he believe that the Teachings above must be expressed in the theological formulations of the latin Church. Dogmas transcend theological language hence it’s valid to simply ask if you believe something or not. I don’t care how you want to express it.


Surely you can’t be unaware that all these questions reflect Latin patrimony. None of these concepts are found in the East (that’s not to say there aren’t ways for the East to understand them within the context of our patrimony, but that doesn’t change the fact that as stated they are foreign to us). So again I stand by my point that you are asking a fellow Catholic to give up their Eastern patrimony in favor of a Western understanding…in conflict with Popes who have asked them to return to their Eastern roots!

Up thread you said that the Pope is just like our Patriarchs. You should know that in the Eastern churches no Primate (whether called Patriarch, Archbishop, or Metropolitan) has the right to interfere in another bishop’s diocese. If correction is needed, the primate along with his brother bishops will approach their wayward brother in love. Corrective action, if needed, is only taken with the agreement of all the bishops. You say an equal authority can not effect discipline and in the East that is exactly what happens. Who can overrule the Pope if he is the wayward one?


However, in English or Latin grammar and vocabulary, that can all accurately to “proceeds from the Father and the Son”–turn that version back into Greek, though, and you get “originates in the Father and the Son” . . .

And the refusal (primarily western) to recognize this, and that this is the natural translation of the raw text back to the original Greek verb is really the source of the (easily solved) Filioque issue.

“Unkind” is a very generous and charitable

description of his pig-headed bigotry . . .


No, you haven’t.

Rather, you’ve asked if he believes in the latin expression of core teachings.

@Isaac14 is quite correct that latins expressing the issue in this manner is serious cause of Orthodox leeriness. I’ll add that not only is the leeriness quite justified, but that the attitude to which they responds tends to be, at best, charitable, and quite frequently to directly contradict the magisterial teachings of the Roman church itself . . .



As the Melkites say; we are in communion with the Church of Rome as the primacy was understood and lived in the first millennium.

As a Byzantine Catholic I believe that the Church of Rome is free to express their theology as they like. As long as it does not conflict with the theologia prima.

These definitions are particular to the Church of Rome.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit