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

Hi folks,

I know that there are a number of posts that I still need to respond to. But, I have a thought on the issue of recognizing Ecumenical councils, infallible papal statements, etc.

Perhaps, there is no solution and the whole inquiry is flawed from the beginning. I must confess that in my own philosophical work, I am embracing a more non-foundationalist approach to epistemology. This means that there are no first principles in theology from which we deduce other truths. Basically, to say that the Church is infallible is simply to say that we have faith that the Church will always proclaim the Gospel truly and will never, as a whole, fall into heresy. To attempt to formulate some criteria for infallibility is doomed to failure I think. The truth is that no one really knows what makes a particular council infallible or a particular doctrinal statement infallible, unless we want to say that it is the continual reception of the Church and integration into the Church's life that is the true sign of its infallibility. I think that this is why the liturgy is the first place to look when seeking the teaching of the Church. Perhaps, it is a mistake to focus so much on finding right structures to preserve infallibility. Perhaps, it is best simply to look at the concrete content of the faith, which is ultimately the worship of the one, true God through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit as expressed in the liturgy. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Which shifts the source of infallibility (I prefer the word "truth") back to Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That's wonderful, but it still leaves the problem: all access to Christ is mediated, it comes to us through human beings. What did Christ teach? He taught X. How do I know? Because A says he taught X. Why should I trust A? And then we are back to the same problem.

It's a tricky problem, and I don't think we can make it go away without solving it. Somewhere, there has to be a way for a Christian to know that he is a Christian. To talk of the Church as a whole never falling into heresy is great, but how do I know if I'm a member of the Church? Which Church is it that won't fall into heresy? The Catholics? The Russian Orthodox? The Protestants? How can I judge between these alternatives? I can't even take scripture as my guide, since scripture was compiled by one of these churches. How do I know it's the right one? Maybe I should be reading gnostic gospels. All is confusion, and no amount of councils can ever close the epistemological circle and justify themselves. If there is no papal charism, or something like it, there is no Church. The ecclesiastical cookie just crumbles away into bits, some larger than others, but none of them the whole cookie.

Joe,

You know what, why don't you just leave the Catholic Church and join the Orthodox Church?

It seems like your mind is already set even before you posted this forum.

It seems that you're not relying on your intuition, so you would resort to this forum? (for what purpose?)

It seems that the debate will go on and on and on about these issues on papal stuff.

So, it seems the topics have gone off thread. So, I would suggest the administrator to close this thread. Because we all know that it will be pointless to continue on the debate on papal stuff. And to let Joe go on his way to whatever he wants to go.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

/qb][/QUOTE]Which shifts the source of infallibility (I prefer the word "truth") back to Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That's wonderful, but it still leaves the problem: all access to Christ is mediated, it comes to us through human beings. What did Christ teach? He taught X. How do I know? Because A says he taught X. Why should I trust A? And then we are back to the same problem.

It's a tricky problem, and I don't think we can make it go away without solving it. Somewhere, there has to be a way for a Christian to know that he is a Christian. To talk of the Church as a whole never falling into heresy is great, but how do I know if I'm a member of the Church? Which Church is it that won't fall into heresy? The Catholics? The Russian Orthodox? The Protestants? How can I judge between these alternatives? I can't even take scripture as my guide, since scripture was compiled by one of these churches. How do I know it's the right one? Maybe I should be reading gnostic gospels. All is confusion, and no amount of councils can ever close the epistemological circle and justify themselves. If there is no papal charism, or something like it, there is no Church. The ecclesiastical cookie just crumbles away into bits, some larger than others, but none of them the whole cookie. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Without a doubt, it leaves us in a state where we have no certitude. But then again, perhaps, there is something inherently subjective about faith. The best we can do is be humble, strive to understand, believe that Jesus is the Christ, and form the most coherent view possible. We must admit that we could always be wrong. This may not be terribly comforting for some, but on the other hand, it should lead us to humility and tolerance for those who have different convictions.

I will say this. Whether the pope is infallible or not, I know that I am not infallible. I'm sure that I am wrong about many things, even if I don't know which things I'm wrong about. If we are going to be conscientious, thinking Christians, then we must simply do our best and leave the rest to God's grace. Perhaps, this is sounding too modernist. But I don't reject everything in modern thinking and culture. Peace in Christ,

Joe

In truth I don't really consider the issues being talked about a whole lot, though they're entertaining to discuss on the Internet. What's important to me is the liturgy, the Eucharist, being in my parish, bringing up my kids in the faith and so on. If the theologians and church leaders work out what the Papacy is for East and West, that would be good. I don't know if it will ever happen.

That wasn't really constructive to the conversation, but it's how I feel I guess.

Andrew

Ilian,

I agree with you completely.

I am a budding Theologian. However, lately, more and more I wish I was a desert monastic!

Laka Ya Rabb,

I'd love to hear your thoughts on all of this. (Also, please consider my question to Lanceg, Hesychios, and Joe as addressed to you as well. Ilian, you too.)

Reading this question makes my eyes glaze over! I don't know, it doesn't seem phrased right. So I will ramble a bit over it.

The bishop just doesn't "define" doctrine like that, he preaches.

I think the question also presupposes that only the bishops are involved in the transmission of doctrine, which is not actually true. The entire church transmits the doctrinal Truths from generation to generation. It's a community.

We stay on track through our common prayers, the liturgical life and with the Symbol of Faith. We also have personal spiritual direction, many through our confessors.

It's a messy business I guess, sort of like a mob all moving in the same direction, but somehow with the love of God we do it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there isn't a lot of "defining", just a lot of worshiping, learning and teaching.

Michael

Petros,

I am a sinner with a poor understanding of Theology and none of The Awesome Mysteries of Christ.

How lowly my thoughts and opinions are, especially on this particular issue.

I say that what the Church says is what I say. Now, to be sure, the Melkite Hierarchy has been very outspkoen on these issues. The Sayedna's I have mentioned, among some who have fallen asleep in the Lord, May their memory be Eternal, of the last one hundred years and even the Patriachs, May thier memory be Eternal, including the currrent Patriarch, His Beatitude Gregory have been more than welcoming of such currents.

All this being said, I echo Ilians Post with a few exceptions. I wish frist to finish school, get married, settle down, have children, ween them and guide them and instruct them in the Faith. I wish to serve God's Church.

On this very delicate issue, I can only say that in my own heart, I would gladly, with approval from the proper Orthodox Authority and the Blessing of my own Bishop, frequently recieve communion in the Orthodox Church while remaining Melkite.

I wish that the Antiochian and Melkite Church, as well as all Catholics and Orthodox, were once again in Communion.

Furthermore, I echo Sayedna Zoghby in his Initiative.

Lastly, I say, for me, Communion with Rome is not something to be lost.

I hope I have clearly and thoroughly conveyed my thoughts.

May God Bless You,
Chels

Michael,

This is by far one of my favorite posts of yours. Can I add a hearty "AMEN!"?

The only distinction - and I am ever fond of distinctions - is that there are times when, for the purposes of clarifying what is proclaimed, a bishop, or a college of bishops in or out of council, need to define...to lay out the demarkations between what is true and false. I see this as a form of preaching, although sometimes it reads like the book of Leviticus. (Yes, dry as desert sand!) Any good shepherd knows how to train the sheep to observe and respect the boundaries of the fold. And there are those sheep, yeah those theoretical types...that baaaad sort, that alays seem to be trying to redefine the boundary and call it "development". Hence the power of the keys granted to every bishop (with the big ones over in Rome! )

Gordo

PS: Peter, I read your post a few times and got lost as well. Can you clarify?

Yet another metaphor to describe infallibility:
"All bishops have keys, but the Pope holds the master copy?"

St. Patrick is having a chuckle as we speak!

Peter_B

I think any one bishop can speak authoritatively and the church can speak infallibly, which means by extension that anyone bishop can speak infallibly as part of the church. I hope that makes sense.

When you said

I might say he spoke authoritatively, but by the merit of what he said it became an infallible part of the teaching of the church. Most importantly as you say his statement was connected to the church. It must at all times be remembered we are a community and communion of faith.

The task of discerning that you mentioned, I think is the �hindsight� that Athanasius spoke of. I think the best word to use to describe this is �tradition�. Tradition is the lens we use to discern the present, because we interpret it through the past. I believe that is what keeps the church grounded and able to function through times when there is confusion, questions, or even when individual church leaders fall in to error. We have a reference point at all times. That in truth is how I think we come to understand what is true and what isn�t, which seems to be a question running through this thread. Perhaps in that sense the way Orthodoxy discerns the truth is not a whole lot different than how the ordinary magisterium works; and considering how infrequently the extraordinary magisterium has been invoked, we may not be that far apart in that regard.

So anyway, the issues JSMelkiteOrthodoxy is struggling with probably would not trouble me as much. Infallibility for instance to me is not a great concern, whereas UOJ would be. Really though if I was Eastern Catholic (of the Byzantine tradition) the things that would be an issue for me would be more practical and everyday. The things that by nature of being in communion with Rome are problematic � liturgical (the revised liturgy threads), ecclesiological (like what the Melkite Patriarch has talked about) and so on. Things that would affect me at the parish level. I think just being divided and apart from the liturgical, theological, historical, etc. patrimony one�s own body is derived from would be difficult and would foster something of a split identity. Maybe that�s not something people feel, and I may be off base, but I think that�s how I would view things if I was in that position.

Andrew

SPDundas,

I am reluctant to respond to your post and I am not sure how I should respond. I don't understand the hostility on your part. I do promise you that if my being here on this forum turns out to be a source of unnecessary contention for people then I will leave. I have noticed that other threads have been shut down quickly as soon as someone gets upset. And this has happened even when there was good discussion going on. I don't see this thread as straying too far off topic since the issues I bring up are broad and deep and I am enjoying reading all of the feedback. I do hope, though, that if you find yourself in some kind of spiritual struggle such as the one that I am in, that others will as patient with you as most here have been with me. But, fear not, if it gets to the point where I am a continual source of agitation for people, then I will leave. Be blessed,

In Christ,
Joe

Dear Joe,

As for people getting upset here, I don't know anything about that . . .

As for SPDundas, our brother, he is very zealous. But as my late father always said, if you don't have something nice to say, say an "Our Father!"

Personally, I've no problem with Catholics or Orthodox (or most others, truth be told ).

Having grown up in a Latinized environs, I too experienced a kind of "conversion" experience when the richness of the Christian East "invaded my consciousness" etc.

In my context, to become Orthodox is something like an act of "treason" - for numerous reasons. However, I came to the conclusion that I could live with the jeers of relatives, if need be.

At the same time, I think North American Christians in particular (and that includes me!) are tempted toward a kind of "consumer religion" that reflects the wider consumer culture in which we live (and I'm not saying that this is what you or others do when they consider leaving their current Church).

If our experience with the Church we are in isn't "working out" and becomes like a bad marriage, then we think (as I have) of leaving it and going to another, whether Catholic or Orthodox, where we tend to denigrate the Church we are in, and also tend to idealize the Church we think about going to.

Converts sometimes continue with this idealized experience of the Church they go to by continuing to denigrate the ecclesial home they've left behind and choosing to remain blind to the very real (if not exactly the same) problems their new Church home is experiencing.

But if those become too overbearing, then there is always another jurisdiction we can move to - and move they do.

The question one may wonder about is to what extent are the tensions and other issues within our own Church things that are really "Catholic" or "universal" in the sense that ALL Churches experience them more or less.

And to what extent are we leaving out the aspect of our own needed spiritual struggle with those tensions that we can, therefore, never really escape, nomatter how many Churches we change throughout our life, looking for that "perfect fit?"

As for papal infallibility, yes, Vatican I had some pretty "strident" things to say about that.

But when I look at how an average UGCC parish operates today - I wonder how Vatican I has really impacted it in this respect?

We sing "many years" for the Pope, we commemorate him and his picture adorns our church halls.

As for the rest, we look to our Patriarch, whether he's recognized by Catholicism (or anyone else) or not. The most important thing is that WE recognize him to be the visible head of our Particular Church. And it is he who is telling us that we are an Orthodox Church in "Eucharistic communion with Rome" - something that even some Ukrainian Orthodox theologians and priests have told me they find a remarkable statement.

The thing is, Vatican I has nothing to do with the fact that our own UGCC hierarchs and laity have allowed, over the years, to let Rome dictate jurisdictional matters to us without so much as a "by your leave." It was our fault really and Rome was filling in a power vaccuum left by hierarchs only too wiling to let Rome have its way.

What we've found, however, is that when we ACT like a particular Church, then we actually can BECOME one in fact.

Rome is the ultimate arbiter in matters of faith and morals, of course. But our Ukrainian Catholic theologians aren't about to start a controversy over the Natures of Christ or other matters so as to invite Roman censure (which would be entirely appropriate in that case!)>

When the Kyivan Orthodox Church was under the Russian Orthodox Synod, that Synod (and the EP)too censured Ukrainian Orthodox teachers and theologians, e.g. for being too Western oriented (St Dmitri of Rostov, St Peter Mohyla etc.)

I've read a number of posts here describing how Orthodox ecclesiology is radically different from Roman ecclesiology.

My point has always been - what is the difference in actual praxis? The answers I've received are theoretical, but hardly convincing on the level of praxis. And I know Orthodox priests, some of whom are relatives, who have always told me horror stories in this respect.

The truth of the matter is that Roman jurisdiction doesn't really matter to most of our UGCC people. It's simply not on our radar screen. And as for the Melkites - well, they really are an example for the ultimate in what a Particular EC Church should be, aren't they?

I don't think our UGCC has really risen to the Melkite standard just yet, but hopefully one day.

If I were a Melkite, I'd be very happy indeed!

They don't allow anyone to "spit in their kasha," to use a vulgar Ukrainian saying.

I don't pretend to understand not only Vatican I but also how Vatican II has affected it, and how the developing ecclesial praxis of the RCC is impacting it to this day - and impact it it does.

Vatican I had nothing to say about the unique status of the EC Churches in union with Rome and to what extent its papal definition is impacted by it - Vatican II had things to say and filled that out.

So I think that we Easterners need to cut Rome some slack since her ecclesial culture is really outside our own ecclesiology - so the real differences and also similarities may be obfuscated by this fact.

But, as Father Archimandrite Sergius Keleher (i proche i proche) has said here, we EC's should understand this as "Rome being in communion with us" and with our unique Eastern Christian culture and ecclesiology.

Rome hasn't told my Patriarch that his statement that we are "in Eucharistic Communion with Rome" is heretical. (Perhaps I may have missed a Vatican press release, if so . . . )

Just as Rome develops her own praxis and doctrine, so too do the EC Churches develop theirs by way of reaffirming what was always theirs, including a uniquely Eastern ecclesiology and way of looking at communion with Rome.

So to look at Vatican I out of context in this way and saying, "I can't accept it" - well, Vatican I isn't all there is about papal jurisdiction.

When people quote Vatican I in this way, they are quoting it out of the wider context, including subsequent ecclesial praxis following Vatican II that do indeed impact Vatican I.

And frankly, I think Orthodoxy today can stand to use a healthy does of some papal centralist authority (I know Anglicans who say their church really needs the pope right about now!).

But be that as it may, if you want to become Orthodox, become Orthodox.

Don't use Vatican I as a kind of "last straw" to rationalize your decision.

As an EC, I know all about Vatican I. And in the light of Vatican II and how my own UGCC has developed since, I know that Vatican I isn't all there is to papal jurisdiction.

As for papal definitions, if the pope ever defined a heresy to be orthodox, he would cease to be pope.

You are absolutely correct on the Marian dogmas - it was only because of the West's understanding of "inherited stain of Original Sin" that the IC became a dogma.

As Kallistos Ware said, "If I accepted this view of Original Sin, then I would also want to develop a doctrine by which the Mother of God would be said to be exempt from it."

So I think there is another reason for your wanting to become Orthodox out of communion with Rome. Perhaps you know it deep down. I don't. And I don't pretend to judge on its validity.

But as for Vatican I as the reason for leaving the Melkites . . . let's say if I were a Ukrainian Melkite, I could think of other reasons to leave them . . . such as their inclusion of the Battle of Poltava in one of their earlier English prayerbooks . . . :

Now THAT really DOES pose an issue of real heresy to a Ukie!!

(Note to Neil the Irish Melkite: At least the Melkites never included a prayer mentioning Oliver Cromwell!! )

Alex

Yes I like his post too (and yours). I'm still thinking about what I should say in response to it.