www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Remaining Melkite?

Hello, I am new here to the forum and I am not sure which place is best for this post, but here it goes:

For those of my eastern Catholic brethren who do not accept papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the papacy, how do you reconcile being in communion with Rome? The reason that I ask this is that I am on the verge of leaving the Melkite Church to become Orthodox. After thorough study, for years, and prayer, I can no longer believe that the claims made by Rome regarding the papacy, especially promulgated at Vatican I, are true. In fact, I think that the Orthodox arguments against innovations in western theology (purgatory, filioque, immaculate conception, original sin, etc.) are solid.

My problem is that it would be socially difficult to leave at this point. But my family and I may move within a few years and it would be a much more convenient time to make the break. As it is, we love our Melkite parish and actively participate, but I have stopped receiving communion and I am not even sure if I can go to confession, since I must confess that deep down in my conscience, I may be "technically" in communion with Rome, but in spirit I am not. Anyway, any suggestions or thoughts on what it means to be eastern Catholic would be helpful. BTW, I am not looking to be converted back to a pro-Roman view. I've read just about all the apologetics I can stand and I've done quite a bit of research into scholarly sources. So, at this point, more research is just overkill. My will is already firm. I just have to decide how long I can live with the kind of duplicitous relationship with Rome that I have. My wife, who was raised Roman Catholic, is very close to being willing to come over with me. Peace in Christ,

Joe

May I submit that your question cannot be answered as you have stated you do not wish to hear a "pro-Roman" view and that your will is settled.

You will always be welcome here.

May the Most Holy Trinity bless you in journey and lead you into All-Truth.

Fair enough. But I know that many of my fellow Melkites do not believe in papal infallibility. In fact, they have a view of the papacy that is not signficantly different from that of the Orthodox. In their case, how do they reconcile that with being in communion with Rome?

Joe

I was just thinking about our brother and friend, Neil, the Irish Melkite!

Let's hear him!

Amado

P.S. You are not Joe Monahan, are you? :p

JSMelkiteOrthodoxy,

Could you please define what you think papal infalability to be?

There is much confusion among many people as to what exactly this means, and it would be good to clairfy it here.

And, for my own education, could you define the difference between the Orthodox and the Catholic view on the Immaculate Conception (of Mary)?

I was in the same position a few years ago struggling over the doctrines of Papal infallibility and supremacy while remaining under Rome.

At the Bishop's request, I asked a fellow Melkite parishioner to help me, That gentleman promptly left the parish and became a catechumen in the Orthodox Church, where he now serves as a sub-deacon.

The Orthodox catechumenate was not an easy undertaking, but more like purgatory on earth, as the Lord revealed my own depravity and need for repentance. Some people refer to the Catechumenate as similar to a spiritual bootcamp. Mine certainly was.

The Primacy of Peter was a book that came highly recommended to me by both Melkites and Orthodox. Have you read it yet?

Hello Joe, and welcome!
I went through the exact same thing in 2004 and 2005, it was very upsetting to me personally because I was so fond of my priest and the community I belonged to. I would have done a lot to stay with them.

Although I think probably Sayedna Elya would not agree with you (based upon his writings) I get the impression that the hierarchy of the Melkite church in the "home" territories might understand your dilemma completely.

There also seems to be a greater fluidity in the Melkite community between the united communion and the Orthodox churches (at least at the level of laity) and a greater understanding and acceptance for those who move between affiliations.

I have so much respect for the Melkites (because of their unique stance regarding Orthodoxy and Roma) that I once considered joining the Melkites to delay or avoid converting to Orthodoxy. But ultimately I knew it wouldn't work for me, the Melkite church in the USA is under the control of Roma in the same way the Archdiocese of Chicago is. It's just not the same as being a Melkite in Syria directly under the synod and Patriarch.

I don't believe that any Roman Catholic can in good conscience advise you to stay in the Melkites because according to that particular church you are already excommunicated by your own choice. I really cannot say what most Melkites would advise.

According to the standard position of the church (based upon the decrees of the Council of 1870), if you believe the doctrines declared are not true, you are anathema. If you cannot believe in universal jurisdiction or Papal infallibility and will not be convinced of the truth of one or the other of those doctrines you probably should not present yourself for communion in a Catholic church, if I understand the rules correctly.

It may be time to take that walk, I have heard the cafeteria is closed.

Michael

I will try to get back to each person's post when I get time. Michael, I agree with you. And I don't present myself for communion in a Roman Catholic Church. In fact, I try to avoid attending the western Mass if possible (and I mean this as no offense to the RCs). I can't help but think, and I do not mean this in an accusatory way, that being eastern Catholic is an act of duplicity. But then again, given the mixed messages from Rome, it is understandable that we may be confused about what Rome really expects of us. Someone asked me to define papal infallibility, and I plan on getting back to that later. But, I think part of the problem is that there is no workable and realistic definition of infallibility that does not have problems. My suspicion is that many in the Vatican, including Pope Bendict, wish that some of those decrees had never been promulgated. But they can't formally repudiate them, so they just try not to mention them too often. Whatever the personal opinions and policies of Pope Benedict, his hands are tied by his office and so he can't undo what has been done.

Still, I've told my priest that I am not leaving the parish anytime soon, which means probably not this year. So I will continue to serve on altar and take part in parish activities, but I won't receive the sacraments anymore. Starting after next Sunday, we will be going through the Melkite catechism as a parish. Interestingly enough, the Melkite catechism is intentionally vague on the issue of our relation to the papacy. Is this duplicitousness? Or is it trying to re-interpret Roman views on the matter? I don't know.

This experience is deeply painful. I know that when the time comes and my friends find out, that many will become extremely angry with me. I understand that. I understand that it would be the same if I were Orthodox converting to Melkite, Roman, or whatever. It is a natural thing to feel rejected when one of your flock leaves for another. This is why I was thinking of waiting until we move. I'm about 90% certain that we will be moving in 2-4 years to the Atlanta area and I know there are a number of different Orthodox Churches. Where we are at now, there is a Greek Church and there is a Syro-Malankar Church (Jacobite). The Syro Church is "monophysite" of course, and I am not sure if they are in communion with the larger Orthodox world. I must confess that at times, all of the fighting and strife caused by these ecclestiastical divisions makes me not feel like being a member of any church. In my worst moments, a non-religious Deism seems attractive. Pray for me and thanks again. I will try to get back to the other commments from others as well.

Joe

Dear JSMelkiteOrthodoxy and Hesychios,

I am a sinner, but please permit me to share my poor understanding of being Melkite in America.


If you two will please read though the following thread:
does the rejection of western doctrines make a man anti-catholic


I offer this thought:
Does all of Vatican II apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Fruthermore, The Papacy of John Paul the Great marked a great resergence in the Return of the East to Her traditions

Also, I would point you to the influence that +Sayedna Joseph Raya, may his memory be Eternal, had on the Melkite Church in the West, along with +Sayedna Tawil, may his memeory be Eternal, and Sayedna Zoghby.


To cut to the quick, The current thought in the Melkite Church is that the Pope of Rome has Primacy and not Supremacy. However, Communion with Rome is not something to be lost.

Since the Pope and the Latin Church seem to be willing to be in communion with us - and Pope Benedict is neither a fool nor an idiot, and various Greek-Catholic hierarchs have not sought to conceal our ecclesiology from anyone - what duplicity are we supposedly practicing, and on whom?

No, the Eparchy of Newton, to get down to specifics, is not in the same relationship to the Church of Rome as is the Archdiocese of Chicago. There is no Synod anywhere which has any voice in the selection of the Archbishop of Chicago. Nor is there any likelihood that the Archbishop of Chicago will ordain a married priest in the immediate future. And so on.

Certainly there are tensions; who denies that? But tensions are often a sign of health and honesty, not the reverse (cf. Chesterton's Orthodoxy on this point. Meanwhile, I trust, perhaps naively, that no one is about to attempt to tell us that there are no tensions within the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fr. Serge

Joe,

Let me ask you this...do you worship the doctrine or Christ?

It's really (in my opinion) quite shameful to deny yourself the Mysteries of Christ simply because you're having problems with the doctrine.

And to me, it does sound like you're thinking or acting superior to Christ because you disagree with the Church's doctines. I think it's terrible.

I don't care where you're going to go (stay Catholic or become Orthodox)..whichever way you're going, you should not treat Christ this way by shoving Him out of your life by not receiving the Mysteries.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

My position would be somewhat different:

Communion should ideally be with all of the legitimate Patriachs. That is not possible today. If that were possible, there would be an order of primacy among them. Without communion of all Patriarchs the primacy at that level is really non-existant.

All bishops are equally bishops. Setting aside the disputed Papal doctrines, no one Patriarch is superior to any other, all are equal as bishops of the church. Alexandria, Antioch, Rome...primacy is not supremacy.

So it makes no real difference which Patriarch one is under, all are equally good, unless there is a question about the legitimacy of any one of them. For instance, if one should teach error.

Michael

Hesychios,

Allow me again, a sinner, to share my poor understanding of the Melkite Church in America.

We have as our Batiryark a legitimate succession. The ousting was political, in poor-wording and unjust explaination.

That being said, the Melkites have communion with Rome. The Batiryark is the head of our Church. However, Communion with Rome is not something to be lost. Communion with Rome is histroically factual, as well as the Primacy of Rome.

Now, all these being said, I am pleased to say that our Antiochian Brethern are very close and we to them. As affirmed by so very many Melkite Hierachy, we have the same Faith, Belief, Tradition and Liturgy, et al as the Antiochian Orthodox. The Melkites however, have communion with Rome.

Okay, I do not want to create a stir. Although, it seems that in any forum where some contentious issue is discussed, there will necessarily be a stir. I apologize to my brethren, both eastern Catholic and Roman Catholic for any poor wording on my part, especially, bringing up the idea of duplicitness. Perhaps, I should simply say that I feel that my being eastern Catholic right now is duplicitness on my part since my heart is conflicted.

I do not think I'm above Christ. I also respect the universal teaching of all apostolic churches that one should not go to communion in a state of grave sin. Nor should one go to communion when one is not fully in communion with the Church. Since, in my heart, I don't know who or what I'm in communion with, it would be wrong for me to commune and to sin against conscience is to sin against Christ. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Simply stated, papal infallibility is the notion that Pope, on his own, can define matters of faith and morals to be held by all the faithful (not just the faithful of the Latin rite) and that such definitions are, of themselves, infallible and irreformable. There is much more that I could say, but, that would be to digress from the topic of this post. It would require a whole new post, in itself, and it seems there are plenty of posts on this already. The same goes for the immaculate conception, but briefly:

The Roman view is that Mary had to be conceived without any stain of original sin, so that she could be a pure temple for the Word of God, so God granted her a favor, in light of the merits of Christ, and preserved her from the stain of all sin. The Orthodox view is that we do not inherit guilt from Adam, but only the consequence of the fall, death. So, there was no need for the preservation from original sin and also, to the orthodox mindset, if Mary had been exempt from original sin, then she would not have died a natural death at the end of her life.

Also, the best theologians in the west, mainly Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Bernard of Claiveaux all opposed the immaculate conception on biblical grounds. Peace in Christ,

Joe