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

Kristos Anesti!

I have never met a Catholic who converted to Protestantism or Orthodoxy or whatever religion who truly understood the Catholic faith.

All ex-Catholics, if their reason is based on doctrine, have hands down left NOT because of what the Catholic Church OFFICIALLY teaches, but because of hearsay from non-Catholics, anti-Catholics, former Catholics, and misinformed lay or even clerical Catholic teachers. I have yet to meet a former Catholic who can explain the Catholic Faith correctly.

With regards to the original question regarding the papacy, infallibility is not an issue, for denying the infallibility of the Pope is tantamount to denying the infallibility of the Church, no matter how one looks at it, if one truly understands the coincident purpose of the papacy and the episcopacy in preserving the Faith. No Pope before or after Vatican I has ever promulgated doctrine on Faith and morals in a non-collegial manner, and non-Catholics will not find an example otherwise in the history of the Church.

The issue really seems to be jurisdiction. On this point, I have yet to find an example in the history of the Church where the Pope made a juridical decision as Pope that affected a particular Church that was done on his own initiative (i.e., on his own whim and fancy) or was done in a non-collegial manner.

Sufficient, non-polemical knowledge should be able to dispel all doubts about the Catholic Church. I travelled the same road for three years before translating to the Catholic Church. In order to understand the Catholic Church, I read Catholic sources (about 90% focused on OFFICIAL documents of OFFICIAL doctrine, not popular theology). I read no polemics against the Coptic Orthodox Church. My decision was based on a study of Catholicism alone.

In truth, I am puzzled why people, when they are on the verge of translating (or converting, as one may see it), are eager to read polemic literature on the Church one is presently in. That does not seem to me to be the true path of knowledge (though your motives may be sincere).

People often ask, "if the Orthodox have done fine without the papacy all these hundreds of years, why should they need the papacy?" The truth of the matter is that though there may have been no need for the papacy by the Easterns or Orientals in the many intervening years since the schism, there has not been anything sufficiently universal opposing the Church in that time. But the first 9 centuries of the Church saw such world-wracking situations that affected the entire Church. In those days, the papacy was the prime and even supreme (not in a jurisdictional sense) protector of Faith and Tradition.

Scripture predicts that the Church will once again be rocked by such universal calamity in the Final Days. During that time, with prayer, all will see the need and propriety of the papacy as, once again, the prime and even supreme protector of Faith and Tradition. Scripture presupposes that there will be one earthly shepherd, the one to whom Christ left his flock, who he will hold accountable when he returns. What a responsibility for the Pope! Let us pray for him, instead of doing all we can do demean his God-given prerogatives and responsibilities!

Blessings,
Marduk

Hesychios,

Allow me, sinner, to yet again share my impoverished view.

Communion with Rome is something not to be lost based in one sense on the historical fact that it was never something to be lost.

I believe that the Chalcdonian 'schism' was mostly semantics. I believe the 1054schism was political and in many ways erroneous.

The Western understanding of the Greeks and Oriental Orthodox has and in many ways continues to be erroneous.

I echo Sayedna Zoghby; we have the same faith as the Antiochian Orthodox.

Kudos to the posts of Hesychios.

JS

Though I greatly respect the Melkites, what really is the difference between this viewpoint and the infamous "cafeteria catholics" who pick and choose which elements they will believe and yet Rome allows them to stay in communion? What is the point of communion if it is not unity of faith? I would say this especially in the case of Melkites given all of the things they must sacrifice to be in communion with the church of Rome.

That's pretty offensive. Would it be appreciated if someone said they had never met an Orthodox person who converted to Catholicism who understood what they were doing or could even explain their own faith? In effect saying the only things that made their conversion possible was ignorance and hearsay?

I'm actually not looking for a response on that point.

Andrew

What is the difference between the "cafeteria Catholic" position and the Greek-Catholic position?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no constituted "Holy Synod of Cafeteria Catholic Hierarchs", nor is there any such synod likely to emerge at the moment nor is there any possibility of Rome entering into communion or abiding in communion with such a putative "Cafeteria Synod".

I could easily go on at considerable length, but the question itself seems dilatory.

Fr. Serge

Indeed. Very important point that often seems to go unsaid in such discussions. Rome is not in the business of clamping down on entire Patriarchal Churches over a difference of perspective, especially on the part of individual bishops. When it becomes an issue of Communion-wide significance, as when the Melkite Synod voted in favor of joint-communion with the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, then you can expect Rome (and any other Catholic Church for that matter) to weigh in more heavily.

Beyond that the Melkites get to be Melkites, because they remain the Patriarchal Melkite Catholic Church. If things really became an issue, I'm sure they'd be dealt with as we've seen in the past, but otherwise the fact that the Melkite Church has a Patriarch and a Synod is not merely smoke and mirrors on the part of the Vatican.

Peace and God bless!

O.K., guys.

Can someone outline what an Eastern Catholic (Orthodox in communion with Rome) view of the Papacy would be (i.e. in the context of our Particular Ecclesiology)?

Anyone?

Alex

This is from the Q&A section of the Melkite site, the answers being provided by bishop John Elya:

So I take two things away from this:

Bishop Zoghby's position, if it has been described correctly, does not represent that of the Melkite hierarchy.

Melkites affirm fully the content of all councils considered ecumenical by the Roman Catholic Church (22 I believe). That would include all doctrine pertaining to the Papacy. Why would it be otherwise, and why be in communion if you didn't affirm the content of these councils? To do otherwise would be to adopt a dissenting position, whether it was a synod of bishops or an individual believer who finds himself at a crossroads wondering if he can remain in communion with a church whose dogmatic pronouncements he can no longer fully assent to.

The Q&A I think also made this telling statement

Andrew

You want to start a reward pool with me? The person who gives the "official, correct" answer to this question wins the pot. I'll chip in my life savings

Peace and God bless!

On the contrary - when the Holy Synod voted a few years ago on Metropolitan Elias's motion, there was only one dissenting vote - that of Archbishop John of Newton.

As to some councils being "more ecumenical" than others, is it necessary to remind the readers of the distinction made by Paul VI in that regard?

Fr. Serge

I think the problem is that some people, when they hear "non-Ecumenical" think "not binding", or "optional". There's an either/or mentality that grabs hold of many people, and I'm not sure of the root of it.

As you rightly point out, even the Popes have made distinctions between the Councils, but when we live in an age where everything must be proclaimed "ex cathedra with a cherry on top" for people to even consider listening to it some folks come away with wild conclusions.

Peace and God bless!

Okay, so if the full content of the post-schism councils is binding on us (whether they are ecumenical or not) then we are obligated to believe in purgatory, the filioque, the supremacy of the Pope, indulgences, etc.

I know that this is Bishop Elya's position, since I have also been through his Q&A on the Eparchy of Newton website. If Bishop Elya is correct and this is really what Rome expects us to hold, then there is no question of my remaining Melkite.

My suspicion is still that the Vatican is a bit wary of the Melkite hieararchy and the primary reason they do not chastise Bishop Zoghby is that they know it will look bad in front of the Orthodox. That they (the Vatican) circumscribe the jurisdiction of our patriarchate to the "patriarchal territories" and so make their own rules for the Melkite Church in North America indicates that they still want as much control and say-so as possible. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Given the explicit disagreement between eastern hierarchs, I would say that there is no official position. The same kinds of disagreement occur among the laity as we see on this forum and other forums. That is okay with me though. People must follow their consciences and it is good to discuss these issues and to be challenged by them. This discussion is certainly helping me. Peace in Christ,

Joe

IMHO, the Eastern/Oriental Catholic understanding of the papacy is that it is in complete agreement with the divine institution of Apostolic Canon 34. Beyond that, there may be differences in interpretation, and even disagreement, of what the Bishop of Rome as head bishop may do in his capacity as Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

I'm in!

(Make that TWO cups of coffee, to go please!---)

Dear brother Ilian,

I don't doubt that there may be Orthodox who became Catholic for the wrong reasons, but you must understand that as an Orthodox in communion with Rome, I do not see any mental dichotomy between being Oriental Orthodox and being Catholic (ideologically, if not in name).

From my personal experience, ALL ex-Catholics who become Orthodox focus on falsely dichotomizing elements of the Catholic Faith from the Orthodox Faith. In direct contrast, Orthodox who translate to Catholicism focus on the agreements and compatibilities of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and we see this as the objective state of the matter (the other option is a modernist mentality) - otherwise, these "differences" which also existed in the first millenium Church would have split the Church since the fourth century. Why these "differences" should now be a cause of disunity directly contradicts the Lord and St. Paul's exhortations in Scripture (and this pertains to ALL apostolic Christians, Western, Eastern, Oriental).

I have not had to positively reject anything from Orthodoxy in translating to Catholicism. I have, however, by the grace of God, been able to reject polemic MISINTERPRETATIONS of the Catholic Faith.

Blessings,
Marduk