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

By the way, I am going to discuss all of what has been going on in full with my parish priest and with my spiritual father (who is a Ukranian Catholic monk). They already know of my Orthodox leanings and being anti-latinizers, are sympathetic. But I need to make clear to them what a crisis this is for me personally. I am concerned though. Our priest has enough to deal with during this transitional time for our parish and I want him to know that I am 100% behind him. I don't want to be another source of worry. Peace in Christ,

Joe

If the Melkite Patriarchate were to break with Roma for any reason, the laws in Syria and Lebanon would probably support them.

In the diaspora, however (particularly in the USA) the Eparchy of Newton would probably not be able to follow the Patriarch with the property, the reporting order being directly to Roma. There would be a court challenge to say the least, and the Pope would probably appoint a new bishop to replace the 'rebel'.

I am not so sure about Australia, but it seems the case may be similar.

That's my reading of it. The diaspora is held firmly by Roma, the Melkite situation in Syria has a lot more independence and that gives the Patriarch some strength to speak out, as he and his predecessors so often have.

Michael

God bless you Joe.

I know what a struggle this is for you, and what ever you decide you have our prayers.

Michael

Dear brother Joe

This might be hard for you to understand as an Eastern Christian, but Orientals and Westerns do not put as much stock in the terminologies of councils, as we do the theology and ideas behind them. Thus, there is a real manner by which Purgatory, filioque, papal supremacy, indulgences, etc. can and ARE compatible with patristic/ Eastern/ Oriental Tradition, though we do not use such terms.

You should also apprise yourself of the exact dogmatic requirements the Councils have placed regarding these doctrines. Sadly, it is almost inescapable that non-Catholic polemics will focus on the NON-dogmatic points of these doctrines in attempts to falsely dichotomize the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths. If you focus on the OFFICIAL dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, these things should not be a problem for you. Do not let non-dogmatic theologoumena rule your decision, please. Non-Catholic polemicists want you to focus on these, but that is just the factious spirit at work, which St. Paul warns us constantly to avoid.

If even after all this, you still cannot find in good conscience reasons to remain in communion with Rome, then may God bless you on your journey. I only ask and pray that you become a voice for unity and understanding when you translate to Orthodoxy. And PLEASE do not engage in the false dichotomies imposed by enemies of peace and unity.

Blessings,
Marduk

marduk,

Well said.

A while back I posted that I believed that Orthodoxy and Catholicism were far more compatible than we realize. I still stand by that and hope to resemble that remark someday.

Gordo

Dear Alex (and anyone else looking for a presentation on what communion with Rome means according to Greek-Catholic ecclesiology):

I suggest Bishop Basil (Losten)'s presentation at the Oxford Consultation of the Kievan Church Study Group. No one seems to have attempted either to refute it or to repudiate it.

Meanwhile, would anyone care to tell me (chapter, verse and direct quotations only, please) where Vatican I defined "the infallibility of the Pope"? It's not in my copy of Pastor Aeternus, neither in Latin nor in English.

Fr. Serge

Father Serge,

How does one obtain a copy of this presentation? My curiosity is peaked!

Gordon, who is at present languishing in Newark

Not to go off of Joe's topic (if this is a distraction from the topic, I will delete it or ask one of the admins to do so)...

As Marduk has stated, I have no problem with reconciling the theologies between my Church and the corresponding Orthodox body, my problem is the difference in praxis. For example, even though my Church and it's Orthodox sister SHOULD have the same ordination practice, I could not be ordained in my Church (as the practice is currently) whereas I think I would be welcomed in the sister Orthodox Church. This is a shame, as I don't want lose the universal Catholic Communion, but to serve as I (at times) feel nudged - I cannot in my Church if I am married. The justifications are stated, they are reasonable and part of the small-t tradition, but they aren't the full Tradition of our Church.

What does one do in these circumstances?

JMS,

Is it possible to assent to the validity and truth of such doctrines without wholly adopting the theological constructs from which they sprang? Can they be 'reinterpreted' and understood within an eastern framework, or do you believe them to be simply false?

May God bless you in your struggle. I faced a similar decision when converting from Protestantism.

Wishing you discernment and peace,

Chris

Michael_Thoma,

While I think the situation with the so-called 'ban' on the married priesthood in the US is quite unexplained and unwarranted, there are many who have indeed left the communion that Rome and thier Church has to pursue the married priesthood in the Orthodox Church.

Some have even come back to the Communion ordained.

My assumption is that if this became fequent enough, Rome would lift its so-called 'ban'.

As for the ECC's ordaination of married men to the priesthood, we all know it happens in America. If you don't, I am telling you it does. It happens in America and no overseas.

Futhermore, the Melkites in the diaspora, namely Australia and spainish-speaking coutnries have not at all, been reticent to ordain married men.

I don't know about Canada and France.

I can assure you though, the situation for the MElkites in america is (and has been) 'changing'.

Chris. Perhaps, that is the question to be answered. Let's take the filioque, for example. Is it essential that eastern Catholics agree with the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son eternally as from one principle, such that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in the same manner as from the Father? Look at this, it is from the "Decree for the Greeks," from the Council of Florence,

"We define in addition that the explanation of the words 'filioque' for the sake of declaring the truth and because of immanent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the creed..."

Now what is this explanation? Just above, the decree declares,

"and that all likewise (that is all christians)profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration; we declare that by this is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also..."

The decree also spells out the doctrine of purgatory, in explicitly penal terms, to be held by the Greeks.

My problem is that I've read too much. And when one reads not only nearly all of the ecumenical and particular council documents and texts, but goes through most papal statements, allocutions, etc. and has done significant secondary research (not Apologetics sources, but real sources like De Lubac, Congar, Meyendorff, Pelikan, Schatz, etc.) Then one gets a pretty complete context for interpreting these documents.

I hate to say it but if you were really to go through all of the medieval and modern western councils and papal documents you would see how radically new Vatican II is in style and tone. It is the only council that I know of that has no anathemas. It is also the only council that doesn't lay everything down in black and white terms. Now, if the current Roman church wants to reinterpret everything along lines that would bring about unity with the Orthodox, that would be great. And, maybe that is what they want to do. However, it is a complete reversal, at least in spirit, of just about everything every Roman pontiff and council has said for about 1200 years.

I guess I've been a little obsessive about this, but what I have done over the last few days is to read over all of the canons, speeches, accounts, and texts from the 7 ecumenical councils as well as go through all of the papal statements and documents (including conciliar documents) in my copy of Denzinger's, which is fairly complete. I've done the secondary research. I've studied patristics, and I have read a few apologetic works, RC and EO (and they were mostly terrible).

It is pretty hard to reconcile the claims of Rome that the Church of Rome has always preserved the faith in tact and never been in error with the fact that Pope Honorius was condemned for teaching heresy and leading the church into heresy at the sixth ecumenical council.

Here is another thing to consider. This notion of "development of doctrine" is a modern idea, indeed, it wasn't a commonplace idea until after Vatican I and most Church theologians were highly suspicious of it at first. When you read the texts of one of the Lateran councils, or Florence, or Vatican I, you really do get the sense out of it that they are trying to claim that from the very beginning, everyone in the Church always knew that the pope had supreme authority and infallibility. There is no argument by way of development of doctrine.

To be honest, I think that the notion of doctrinal development is too slippery. It allows one to overthrow the intent of prior teachings and claim that no contradiction is really occuring (witness the change in the teaching on Usury and religious liberty). To try to finesse things such that Vatican I really doesn't mean what it says is just incoherent to me. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Dear brother Michael Thoma,

I believe Eastern/Oriental practices are slowly BUT SURELY being reinstated in our Eastern/Oriental parishes in the "Western countries." I also second Laka Ra Yabb's comment that NOWADAYS, it would not be a problem for a married man to be ordained even in Eastern Catholic parishes of "Western" countries.

I, for one, am simply in love with a particular Latinization which I hope Eastern Catholic Churches who have adopted it do not ever dispel - this is the practice of daily Mass/Liturgy. I just can't get enough of the Liturgy!! !!!

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Joe,

I have discussed filioque with Eastern and Oriental Christians, and 95% do not have a problem with the theology behind it, given the official explanation promulgated by the Catholic Church under the auspices of JP2, of blessed memory. This happened several years ago. Have you read it? I've met only one Orthodox person who has read the official explanation and still has a problem with Filioque. Three others who have a problem with it have never read the official explanation. I've met one Eastern Catholic who has a problem with Filioque, even with the official explanation. In truth, most Orthodox are unaware of the official explanation.

The thing that is important to point out about the Florence decree on Filioque is that it was not as clear as the recent official explanation. I personally believe some things could be made even clearer, even in the official explanation, but as it stands, the Latin doctrine does not present any objective grounds for disunity. Perhaps we can continue this discussion on a new thread on Filioque. I can give you an Oriental Christian perspective that can perhaps build a bridge.

As far as development of doctrine is concerned, I have heard non-Catholic polemicists deny it in theory, but in practice, they cannot deny it. The denial of the principle is for one of two reasons: 1) lack of understanding of the principle; 2) disagreement with the way doctrine has developed in Catholicism. Thus, objectively speaking, no one really has any valid reason to reject the principle.

I pray this has given you something to think about. I would love to discuss with you the compatibility of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you so desire, we can take it point by point, each point occupying the matter of one thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I am glad that you found the Catholic and Orthodox polemical literature bad reading.

Dear brother Joe,

You wrote:
"It is pretty hard to reconcile the claims of Rome that the Church of Rome has always preserved the faith in tact and never been in error with the fact that Pope Honorius was condemned for teaching heresy and leading the church into heresy at the sixth ecumenical council."

This is not exactly a factual statement. I have never read a non-Catholic apologist, even a polemicist, claim that the CHURCH OF ROME did not preserve the faith during the monothelite controversy. The argument has always been against the person of Pope Honorius. Also, no ecumenical Council has ever charged Pope Honorius for "leading the church into heresy." At best, it has been stated that Pope Honorius agreed with the heretics. And he has never been condemned for being the primary instigator of the heresy.

In any case, have you ever read Pope Honorius' letter to the monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople? Do you really believe the letter is TEACHING THE CHURCH anything? Are you aware that the letter itself recommended SILENCE on the issue? Can you provide any corroborating evidence to support your statement that Pope Honorius actually TAUGHT monothelism, or even that the Pope merely recommended that monothelism be taught?

BTW, Oriental and Western Christians do not believe that anathemas on PERSONS, even by ecumenical councils, are infallible statements. Indeed, they are first and foremost merely DISCIPLINARY measures. I do not know what reasons Eastern Christians have for believing they are infallible. Can you give me the heads up? Given all the evidence, it is possible and likely the Sixth Council erred in condemning Pope Honorius as a heretic. But that is a topic for another thread, if you so choose.

I hope this has given you more things to think about.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, this is not essential for Eastern Catholics to believe, because it is actually contrary to what Latins believe (and to what is defined by Florence). Here is part of the text of Florence that is often overlooked:

"The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son"

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son by way of the Son receiving the Spiration, and from the Father as Source. This is made even more explicit in the recent clarifications that Mardukm is speaking of. It's "one principle" because it's one Spiration, one "Spirating power" to use St. Thomas Aquinas' words, but this does not mean that the procession exists in the Father and the Son identically, because the Son is always the receiver of the power, and the Father always the Source.

Again, recent clarifications from the Vatican have made this much more explicit, though there is still some work to be done (translating theological ideas from a Latin to Byzantine framework is notoriously complex). I'll see if I can dig up those clarifications.

It's actually not a complete reversal at all. The Medieval approach simply expressed itself differently. There was actually a very wide range of diverse belief and expression; it wasn't nearly so black and white as modern eyes seem to read it as. The debate between the Molinists and later Thomists is a classic example of this, both having completely opposed ideas based on Trent and Thomistic theology, both appealing to the Papacy, and ultimately the Papacy ruling that neither was right to the exclusion of the other. That is only one example of such diversity, as there were equal disputes between the Franciscans and Dominicans, between the Carmelites and just about everyone, ect. Yet all fell, and still fall, within orthodoxy (though those Franciscan nominalists laid a little too much groundwork for the Reformers, in my not so humble Dominican-minded opinion :p )

The reason Vatican II didn't issue any anathemas is because it wasn't dealing with any explicit heresies, but was rather intended to "re-center" the Church. It wasn't dealing with heresies, but unhealthy tendencies that had grown up during the post-Reformation period. It's also critical to remember that it wasn't really a "new" Council, but in many ways a continuation of Vatican I (Vatican I was "officially closed" in 1960, as part of the preparation of Vatican II).

There are definately some differences in approach visible in Vatican II versus previous Councils, but that doesn't really indicate a substantial break, IMO, anymore than the fact that later Ecumenical Councils, and Medieval "Western Councils" lacked violent armed mobs intending to physically force their decisions on fellow bishops indicated a substantial break with the first four Ecumenical Councils

In all of this discussion, though, you remain in my prayers. While I'm obviously trying to clear away what I personally see as unnecessary obstructions, it's not with the intent to "win" an argument. You are having a very serious and true struggle, and I appreciate this. I will be praying for you, that you may find peace.

Peace and God bless!