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

The statement which I was asking people to agree or disagree with is similar to what VCI said about �papal� infallibility, but with 2 differences � one small and one big.

The big difference is that VCI�s statement was only about the pope, not �any bishop�. (That is to say, VCI didn�t mention the possibility of any bishop other than the pope making an infallible statement; but neither did it rule out that possibility. This is why I suggested that VCI said too little, rather than too much.)

The small difference is that where I used the phrase �acting as teacher of all Christians�, VCI said �acting as chief shepherd and teacher of all Christians�.

Other than that, the two statements would be the same.

(Also, I think my question is more understandable if read together with my post from 3 months ago, i.e. this one .)

God bless,
Peter.

Dear Friends,

Michael's post is truly great - but to be fair to Joe and others, the fact is that the Pope does indeed have an authority that no one else in the Church does.

And he does "define" what is celebrated and taught through liturgy, worship and preaching.

To say otherwise is to engage in a process of "watering down" papal authority that simply does not obtain in the Catholic Church.

Alex

I think it's that sort of personalization of the authority of the church that will continue to cause problems in East/West relations. That's my two cents anyhow.

I ran across a couple of blog conversations this morning that may be related to all this - here [ad-orientem.blogspot.com] and here [sarabitus.blogspot.com] . The second is a commentary on the first.

Andrew

Hi all,

I won't be posting for a day or two, due to a death in the family. I do, however, still have a couple of replies I'd like to make, so hopefully I'll get back to this thread soon.

Remember us in your prayers.
Thanks,
Peter.

Peter,

So sorry to hear that. Prayers for you and your family.

God bless,

Gordo

If "The Primacy of Peter" is the collection of essays edited by Meyendorff, then yes I have read it and I highly recommend it. It is one of the works that led me to think that the Orthodox position on the papacy is more persuasive.

Joe

Oops, I clicked the wrong quote and reply button. That response was meant for Elizabeth who had asked if I had read "The Primacy of Peter."

Michael, here is something interesting. Archbishop Zoghby has publicly proclaimed Vatican I to be a pseudo-council and clearly does not believe in papal infallibility, nor universal papal jurisdiction. Yet, he is a bishop in good standing and Rome has said nothing. This very much argues to Father Serge's point that Rome is willing to be in communion with us even when our bishops flatly state that they believe exactly what the Orthodox believe regarding the papacy. Now, I would assume, then, that Melkite clergy would find it perfectly acceptable for parishioners to continue communing when they express views no different than the views of one of their most esteemed bishops. In fact, I'm almost positive that this is what my priests would say. Just some food for thought.

Peace in Christ,

Joe

I am wondering if the "no clear infallible authority leads to no authority" argument is not a version of the slippery slope? I'll have to think about this more. In light of all of this discussion, I am tempted to start on an article entitled, "Being is Messy." I suppose I could just as well entitle it "ecclesiology is messy." But I am at the point where the only thing I can see to do is to try to form the most coherent view that I can and always be open to adjustment and correction.

Peace in Christ,

Joe

FYI Joe, The little icon of the paper sheet with pencil is for editing. You can always click on that if you are quick enough, and I see that you noticed the mistake in two minutes, which should be plenty of time to go into 'edit mode'

Peter, I think that this is an interesting suggestion. Here are a couple of problems though, and you address one of these by calling the definition "the most anti-climactic..." Basically, infallibility becomes a kind of platitude. Everyone is infallible when they speak the truth. At least that seems to be what the doctrine would amount to. I can infallibly proclaim that 2+2=4. So, basically, this makes the whole council a complete waste of time.

The other problem is simply this: Shouldn't we interpret the text of the council according to the intentions of the authors? I do not think that it is possible to suggest that the council fathers of Vatican I intended to make infallibility a perogative of all bishops. Now, from what I've read about the council, it seems clear that the "maximalist" view did not win out (which would have made things a lot worse). Nevertheless, I think the definition given by the council is still a very strong one. And it seems that if we water-it-down too much, then we simply make it meaningless. But this is, in fact, a problem I have with the notion of papal infallibility. In order to make it conform to the facts of history, one has to interpret papal infallibility in such a way that becomes meaningless and useless. And clearly, I don't think that this is what the Roman curia intends. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Yes, I was aware of that.

I explored everything carefully but ultimately I decided that this was just a rationalization on my part.

After all, I (like the Melkite hierarchy {excepting Kyr John Elya}) believe that the claim of Rome to Universal Jurisdiction was exaggerated. Historically the claim is unsustainable. As such I viewed it (and still do) as a gross distortion while being the central element in a council the church fathers claim is universal and ecumenical.

This council is supposed to be protected by the Holy Spirit from any such shenanigans, if it is genuine. The church itself has set for itself this high standard. By it's own actions it disproves the claims it makes for itself. Yes, I agree that Vatican I is basically a Pseudo-Council.

If I am right (and by that reasoning the bishop of Rome is equal to other Patriarchs but not superior to any) then there is no special reason for me to be in communion with Rome over any other Patriarch. Any Patriarch that teaches Truth and is valid can be my Patriarch.

So why should I stay? As our friend Laka Ya Rabb has said "Communion with Rome is not something to be lost" but I fail to see the reason why. There is nothing magical about it, this is an office of the church, not a Sacrament. The Pope is not a Prophet, or Messiah or an oracle. He is a bishop and Patriarch who should teach Truth, be an exemplary witness and be in communion with the other autocephalic churches who teach Truth.

This would all be possible if...well, we all know the reasons.

As I see it, the Patriarchal Apostolic churches are justified in not communing or concelebrating with the Pope. By refraining from making equivelant false claims for themselves the Orthodox churches are more correct theologically, and one of their primary responsibilities is to protect their flocks. Another responsibility of these bishops is to remonstrate with their brother in Roma, to help him.

I have always hoped that the schism would end within my lifetime, but I have serious doubts that this is possible (I am not getting any younger). Given that I must be on one side or the other of this great divide, possibly until my day of judgment, I will stand with the Orthodox until the crises (or my life) is over.

Michael, that sinner

It is not clear to me that there is anything to be lost either by not being in communion with Rome. In fact, the blogs Ilian linked us to in his last post lay out some good arguments on this question. I must confess that I don't see the Pope as being a force of unity in the Church. I used to think that the problem of division was an Orthodox problem, but within the Roman communion of churches, serious division is within the same Latin rite and at the diocesan and parish level. And ethnic division is one thing; but liturgical and doctrinal division is quite another thing. To be honest, I wonder why the Melkite hierarchs do not simply return to Orthodoxy and reunite with the Antiochian Orthodox. Perhaps, the Melkites could even be their own autocephalous jurisdiction. Who knows? I hope I don't ruffle too many feathers by saying this. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Peter, you and your loved ones are in my prayers tonight. In Christ,

Joe

We are about to begin a study series at our parish on the "Light for Life" catechism. Interestingly enough, the Catechism says very little about the papacy and even implies that we (Melkites) do not hold the councils after Nicea II as being Ecumenical.

From the catechism,"The Catholic and (Byzantine) Orthodox Churches together recognize seven such councils as being Ecumenical..........The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope...."

The text is certainly ambiguous, to say the least. What are we to makes of this and doesn't this kind of ambiguity nurture the kind of uncertainty and frustration that I (and many others) are experiencing? It will be interesting to see what happens at these parish meetings. We are going through a transition right now. We had one parish meeting where there was a great deal of tension due to our priest's emphasis on the need to be Orthodox. Some Roman Catholic parishioners were rather unhappy. I want to stay and support our priest. But, I am also worried that if I take part in the discussions, I will just make things worse. And, it is a horrible feeling to have to stuff one's thoughts and feelings inside out of charity. I'm used to doing it. I was raised Southern Baptist and when I visit my relatives, I must know what the limits are to dinner table theological discussion. But it will be even harder when it is in one's own parish. To be honest, I am deeply grieved, tormented even . And my concern is not just for myself. I am grieved for my friends, my brothers and sisters in Christ in my parish, for my family, and for our priests who have the awesome responsibility of having to deal with all of this. Peace in Christ,

Joe