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

I would recommend not staying within the Catholic Communion if you feel the way you do because your beliefs on these subjects seems to make you not a Catholic as it is. Good luck on your journey!

Logos Teen

That is exactly how I felt.

I reached a stage when I could no longer in good conscience present myself for communion.

I did not think my opinion of the papal doctrines was wrong, and for that reason confessing it was not possible because I frankly was not planning on giving up my opinion. While I feel certain there were others in the parish who did not agree with universal jurisdiction my church affirmed those doctrines and I felt like a hypocrite.

I was basically in disagreement with the church I worshipped in. I stopped receiving commmunion for several months, then I discontinued attending the parish on a regular basis for better than a year while discerning. I took the time to visit Orthodox parishes and their priests. I also went to the Roman Catholic church for Mass occasionally, I guess I was looking for inspiration.

Michael

Not in the diaspora.

Andrew

Hi all,
I thought Orthodox are welcome to receive communion in the Catholic churches .(I know that except in some areas of the Middle East, most Orthodox bishops forbid their faithful from doing this and don't reciprocate) If this is so, and the Orthodox clearly differ in opinion from the Catholic church, then why would it be wrong for an Eastern Rite Catholic to receive communion even if he does disagree with some doctrine? Or have I misunderstood something somewhere?

Peace,
Indigo

Well...if you say that Mary died because of consequences of sin...but she's never sinned though.

So does that mean Christ died because of consequences of His sin? Absolutely not. But He DID die, did He not?

The Orthodox does see Mary to be without stain of sin. So that's no different than the Roman view of Mary's sinlessness.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

JSMO:

I was going to address your original post holistically, but I think a response to your last one will be the best way:

It may just be a matter of the way you worded it, but this statement is incorrect. He cannot "on his own" define things for all to hold. He can only do so as a guarantor of Tradition (big T, meaning what we have been given by God). He does not make things up; he can only make more explicit what he has received.

I can't really make the point eloquently or accurately, so I'll outsource my problem to someone much more learned than I: (the writer is talking about liturgy, but the same applies to other areas)
This is from Cardinal Ratzinger's book The Spirit of the Liturgy . Now we can debate forever about the apostolicity of the understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome as described by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. I am willing to basically accept it, based on my limited knowledge of pre-schism history, but only when these caveats are applied (only on matters of faith and morals, only as a servant of Tradition, and only when there is a grave need).

Now, as far as the Melkites go, the Synod approved a statement in 1995 saying that the Melkite Church believes in 1. everything the Orthodox Church believes and that 2. it accepts the office of the Papacy as practiced in the first millenium. Rome said that this initiative was too hasty, but did not condemn it in any way.

Given that, I'd suggest that if you go Orthodox (to which jurisdiction do you intend to go to?), that you be able to annunciate what you're leaving, why, and to accurately articulate the "errors" of the Church you're leaving. The Melkite Church claims to be "Orthodox" in this sense and Rome has not condemned it for doing so. What would the difference in your beliefs be if you were Orthodox? Would it simply be that as Orthodox, you would confess that Rome is in heresy (assuming of course that the Orthodox Church really believes that, formally, in those terms), wheras as a Melkite you wouldn't?


As for the ICC, my only thoughts on this are:

1. Has any synod of the Orthodox Church condemned this? I'm just curious about this; if you have references please let me know.

2. when you convert, would you be required to "anathemize" or reject the ICC?

3. Does the ICC necessarily require that one accept the "Augustinian" notion of "stain of orignial sin? (in my mind, the answer is "no", though I'm no theologian. I have not seen anything else in the CCC which states that an Augustinian theology of orginial sin is a dogma of faith)

4. How does the ICC, in its actual substance when looked at in an Augustinian light, actually contradict with the "sinless" descriptions applied to the Theotokos in the Byzantine liturgy (and I don't mean just the prayers of the DL; I mean the whole of the worship of the Byzantine church - to include of course the Paraklesis and Akathistos prayers).

Markos
[of course, if anything I said is incorrect I am most willing to retract it]

So, you didn't want to take communion because of your serious sin? Is it a sin to be a Catholic?

As of NOW, you are still canonically Catholic. So denying yourself from Communion because you're having identity crisis is a crock, really.

To me, Christ is the ONE and SAME whether it's Catholic Eucharist or Orthodox Eucharist. There are NO two Jesuses. He is the same in both apostolic Churches as the Sacraments are "valid."

So, what you're saying about not receiving communion makes absolutely no sense at all. You're coming up with excuses and the evil one LOVES that you're not receiving Christ in the Sacrament.

It is my view that both Catholic and Orthodox (as both are truly apostolic Churches) do NOT "OWN" Jesus Christ as a piece of property, so therefore, these TWO Churches with VALID apostolic sucession, priesthood and Sacraments should NOT deny each other the Sacraments to the souls who use it for salvation.

I don't like it when people say "Oh it's a symbol of communion." My question is: WHAT COMMUNION? Communion with G-d? Communion with Church?

To be in true apostolic succession, with valid priesthood and Sacraments, in full communion with G-d, then these two Churches are in communion with each other in mystical way whether you like it or not. It's a fact.

If you deny yourself from Eucharist, then you'll be even more in turmoil and without peace because you're pushing Him out of your life right now. So how else will you be able to discern more clearly where you need to go? What you need to do? There's no clear way of knowing without the light.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Dear JSMelkiteOrthodoxy,

This is a good conversation you've started. For now I just want to make a comment about "papal" infallibility: my view is that what Vatican I said in this regard can actually be said about every bishop -- see this post for specifics. (Incidentally, I've mentioned this on 3 or 4 different threads on this forum, and thus far no one has told me I'm wrong. That seems to me to be a good sign.)

God bless,
Peter.

SPDundas,

The Church doesn't share your view that Communion should be taken no matter what, no matter what Communion they belong. This is not meant as an insult, but the statement you just made is very Anglican in its wording. They usually say it doesn't matter that the institutions are not in Communion because Christ is bigger than all of them, but this is just not the reality.

Well said.

Dear Friends:

I am not sure I agree that a Catholic's good standing (Roman or Eastern) should be determined on what one beliefs are about Papal infallibility. This dogma is only 136 years old, I think it is pretty unfair and illogical to hold people to something that most Catholics did not believe for about 90% of the time the Church has existed.

if the church is going to push those of us out who dissent from this doctrine, where would we go? The orthodox perhaps. In years past mabye the Anglicans but look at the mess they are in. And none of the other Protestants have the richness of liturgy and sacraments.

Belief in papal infallibility and the immaculate conception are not in the apostolic preaching. These doctrines are very late developments. If I think that the Catholic Church has maintained the most ancient elements of the faith, that the Catholic Church's teaching on salvation, social justice, the sacraments, are so rich and true, and I am willing to die for them, why should I be cast out for dissenting to an irenic (sp?) doctrine?

I was born and raised in the Catholic Church. I have defended her all my life. I have even left it a couple of times, and have come back. "You alone have the words of eternal life."

Infallibiltiy, inerrancy are western concepts anyway. they are attempts to deal with the enlightenment. In a way, these concepts merely play along with the enlightenment, they are rationalistic. Our church's teaching on the infallibility of the pope is attempting to provide the same shield that the conservative protestants are with plenary, verbal inspiration of the bible. But both approaches end up creating an a priori measure of truth to which the bible and tradition are subject too.

The Bible and Tradition are both self-authenticating. The Holy Spirit enlivens them , the Holy Spirit in the church and in us. This is not liberal or Protestant doctrine (I reject liberal Christianity). To me, this about belonging to the Body of Christ, in time and eternity. My Catholic orthodoxy is based on the message of the Bible, the Nicene Creed, the writing of the saints and the fathers as they comment on the bible and tradition, and the sacraments and liturgy.

I think you are mistaken. It is the Catholic Church's view that the Orthodox are allowed to receive the Sacraments because:

1) The Orthodox Church is an apostolic Church
2) The Orthodox Church has true Sacraments
3) The Orthodox Church has true Priesthood

So, therefore, it is the Catholic's view that we are not "God" to decide whether or not the other TRUE Church can or cannot receive Communion.

If any of the Church don't have any of these above criteria, then the Church isn't "true enough" to allow their members to receive any of the Catholic sacraments. SO certainly, the Angelican Church does NOT meet any of these Criteria. Neither does the Lutheran Church. So, that leaves the Orthodox Church, the only Church besides the Catholic Church to be True.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Let me say to you all that I appreciate the thorough and gracious replies that you have given me and the good questions that you ask. I hope I can answer each question adequately. I will say one thing, to be honest, I think that issues like the Immaculate Conception are secondary issues. I am not in turmoil because of the immaculate conception even though I think that it is an unnecessary Dogma and one which leads only to confusion, not clarity. In my mind, it is the fact that it required such a complicated theory, (formulated by blessed Duns Scotus) inorder to justify the Dogma and make it intelligible within the tradition, that makes me suspicious of it. I share the view that would probably be the consensus among eastern Christians: Let us proclaim her as all pure and immaculate and beyond that, remain silent.

With regard to papal infallibility, Vatican I and 2 makes it very clear that the pope's infallibility may be exercised at any time without the consent of the Church. This does not mean that the pope can proclaim that pancakes are eaten in heaven. I realize that. The definition of Vatican I explains that it has to be with regard to faith and morals and it is implicit in the definition that any infallible proclammation must be an expression of the tradition, not a contradiction of the tradition. However, the same decree declares that it is the Pope who is the final judge of what constitutes tradition. Since the Pope is the interpreter of the tradition, then the pope is the only one who can judge whether his own proclammations are in line with the tradition. Also, the Roman view of primacy does, in fact, hold that the Pope can change anyone's liturgy at any time. If the pope does not interfere in eastern liturgies, it is only because of his graciousness and respect for tradition. But there is nothing stopping any future pope from requiring some change in any particular church's liturgy.

Note carefully that when the late Pope John Paul II, talked about reviewing the papacy, he spoke of reviewing how the papacy "could be exercised." In other words, Pope John Paul II was saying that he still had the right to interfere whenever he thought he needed to, but that in practice, he wouldn't.

It was also pointed out that the Melkite hierarchs issued a statement expressing essentially the Orthodox view of papal primacy and they were not chastised for it by the Vatican. There could be many reasons why they weren't chastised, one being that the Vatican knows it would imperil ecumenical relations with the Orthodox. Besides, most western Catholics are completely ignorant of the Melkites, so the Vatican doesn't have to worry too much about the appearance of defiance.

My thought is that perhaps, the Vatican would just prefer to enter into communion with the Orthodox, but without any retractions of papal supremacy and infallibilty. Rather, in practice, the Vatican would simply stop talking about it and wouldn't issue anything considered "infallible," though theoretically they always could do that.

I would also say that while, in theory, papal infallibility is very limited, in practice the Vatican's infallibility is not. This is because Vatican I and 2 both regard the ordinary magisterium of the Church as infallible. Now, what is the ordinary magisterium of the Church? If it is all of the bishops in the world united with the pope, then that wouldn't be a problem (that is why ecumenical councils are infallible). But all too often, this is understood to mean any document that comes out of the Vatican that has the pope's signature on it. I remember looking at the Navarre Bible commentary on Matthew and they asserted that Matthean priority was a teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. There are many other examples that could be given. I do realize that the folks who wrote the Navarre Bible are not the magisterium, but private theologians. Still, what one finds if one looks at the last two centuries are a whole host of papal statements on evolution, religious freedom, biblical criticism, the rhythm method of birth control, liberal democracy, etc. that would have been understood as belonging to the ordinary magerium of the church if not ex cathedra infallible. Later, at Vatican II and by later popes, many of these statements were overturned or re-interpreted in such a way as to nullify the original intent of the papal statements. The papal statements about religious freedom are a good example. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Hello Peter,

What you state could theoretically be true, but in fact is not.

No other bishop has ordinary power in every other diocese.

No other bishop names his brother bishops on his own authority.

No other bishop erects dioceses around the world on his own authority.

No other bishop claims the right to call a Council on his authority alone.

No other bishop may codify the canons of the church upon his own authority.

I could go on but the point would be made clear enough by simply quoting Vatican I directly, letting the church speak in it's own words...

July 1870 AD

First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

SECTION 3 - Jurisdiction
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

Why is this mentioned here when the topic is infallibility? Because the two concepts are inextricably entwined. This is why both subjects were addressed at the same council, without universal jurisdiction Papal infallibility need not be addressed at all, because the church has always been considered infallible in the larger sense you speak of.

Once we have one person responsible for everything that happens in the church from doorkeepers in Birmingham to seminaries in Pittsburgh, the charism of infallibility must reside in that person in a unique way.

The decree goes on to state:

SECTION 4 - Infallibility
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Here above the claim is made that the Holy Spirit was promised to Peter, not mentioning the twelve.

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

In section 7 above it is reiterated that the gift of truth was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors. No mention is made of the other Apostles, or the college of bishops here.

In section 9, the charism of infallibility promised to the church is specifically reserved to the Pope.

Now the CCEO is a document governing the eastern Catholic churches, promulgated on the authority of the Pope alone. It is binding upon all eastern Catholic bishops. This is part of what the the code has to say about Papal authority:

Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.


Canon 45
1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 48
In this Code the term "Apostolic See" or "Holy See" applies not only to the Roman Pontiff but also, unless it is otherwise prescribed by the law or the nature of the matter indicates otherwise, dicasteries and other institutes of the Roman curia.
In Canon 48 the Curia get's a bit of recognition for all it's hard work.

Canon 78
1. The power which, according to the norm of the canons and legitimate customs, the patriarch has over bishops and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides is ordinary and proper, but personal. Thus, the patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire patriarchal Church nor can he delegate his power to someone for all cases.
2. The power of the patriarch is exercised validly only inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church unless the nature of the matter or the common or particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff establishes otherwise.
This is interesting.

All italics where they appear are mine.

Michael

This is absolutely correct, and I am glad you posted this. The promulgation of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Our Lady are likewise in response to the "enlightenment."