www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papacy and the Eastern-rite

No, the Antiochians recognize the Palamite councils, as do the Melkites. I'm not sure how that establishes a unified way of receiving Latin converts since depending on where a latin goes he will either have to be re-baptized, or simply chrismated, or neither. I guess the point is that it does recognize the need for conversion and the Melkites have decided that is obviously not necessary for latins to commune in their churches.

"You ask if certain groups are "Orthodox" or not. My answer in most cases is that I leave that up to God and the legitimate hierarchs of The Church to determine. The question I would ask is; are they in communion with me via my bishop? If the answer is yes then there is no problem. If the answer is no than we have a problem which may or may not (there are many reasons for not being in communion) touch on matters intrinsic to The Faith"

That is more the position that I'm getting at with regard to the Melkites. I'm guessing you are denying Melkite Orthodoxy because they have re-established communion with Rome, unlike the other listed groups which have not. Is that correct?

"Finally another question looms. Even if there have been some instances of inter-communion sanctioned (or at least tolerated) by one or two bishops mostly in Lebanon, what are the broader implications? My answer is very few."

I think it matters more because the Melkites are such a small group. A Russian bishop in St. Petersburg does not have to concern himself with how to treat Melkites since it's doubtful he will ever encounter any. I am more interested in the reactions of Orthodox bishops who know Melkites and encounter them on a day to day basis.

Matt,
I am not denying the Orthodoxy of the Melkites. I have some personal doubts but thats not up to me to decide. What I am denying is that the Melkites are in communions with the Orthodox Church. As a matter of personal opinion I think their relationship with Rome is or should be a grave cause for concern.

At the very least this would seem to imply acceptance of certain Latin Church dogmas which are widely and in some cases almost universally considered heresy within Orthodoxy. Do the Melkites subscribe to the dogmas of the First Vatican Council? If not, does Rome understand their rejection of these dogmas? And why would the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they believe that Roman claims to Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction are heretical? This is especially true when that communion means schism from the rest of the Orthodox Churches (presuming the Melkites to be theologically Orthodox). The more I ponder the issue of the Melkites the less sense it makes, unless they do in fact tacitly accept most or all of the dogmatic definitions of the Roman Church.

ICXC
John

When Eastern churches entered into communion with Rome, it seems to me they were obligated to affirm all that the Catholic Church and Faith have affirmed as authoritatively, immutably, and infallibly true, with a full assent of faith, as Ad Tuendam Fidem says. To not do so and insist upon the right not to do so would seem to be an act of bad faith, at a minimum.

Best to all,
Robster

Robster:

One might reasonably (IMO) reply to your insistence that Eastern Catholics assent to the various Latin synods since the Second Council of Nicea that it, if it is indeed the position of Rome, suggests bad faith on the part of Roman Catholicism insofar as Rome has pointed to the Eastern Catholic Churches as models of how the Orthodox Churches could come into communion with Rome and remain authentically Orthodox. If Rome insists on Orthodox assent to the various Western synods that took place after the Second Council of Nicea, there will never be re-union. So, is Rome serious about reunion or not?

Ryan

Dear Robster,

You present a good point but I wish to share with you the Union of Brest: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE UNION OF BREST (1595)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treaty Of Brest Document
Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church

[These articles were accepted by the hierarchy of the Church in Kiev in three languages: Ukrainian, Polish, and Latin. It is on this basis that the Church of Kiev is in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

The articles frequently refer to the King of Poland. The function of the King of Poland vis-�-vis the Greek-Catholic Church were assumed by the Austrian Emperor. As there is no longer a King or Emperor, and the Greek-Catholic Church is certainly not state-supported in Ukraine, these functions revert to the synod or lapse entirely.]

We require prior guarantees of these articles from the Romans before we enter into union with the Roman Church.



1.�Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another�we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.



2.�That the divine worship and all prayers and services of Orthros, Vespers, and the night services shall remain intact (without any change at all) for us according to the ancient custom of the Eastern Church, namely: the Holy Liturgies of which there are three, that of Saint Basil, that of Saint Chrysostom, and that of Epiphanius which is served during the Great Lent with Presanctified Gifts, and all other ceremonies and services of our Church, as we have had them until now, for in Rome these same services are kept within the obedience of the Supreme Pontiff, and that these services should be in our own language.



3.�That the Mysteries of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ should be retained entirely as we have been accustomed until now, under the species of bread and wine; that this should remain among us eternally the same and unchangeable.



4.�That the Mystery of Holy Baptism and its form should remain among us unchanged as we have served it until now, without any addition.



5.�We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.



6.�We will accept the new calendar, if the old one cannot be, but without any violation of the Paschalia [the Easter cycle] and our other feasts as they were in the time of unity, because we have some special feasts which the Romans do not have; on the sixth of January we celebrate the memory of the Baptism of the Lord Christ and the first revelation of the One God in Trinity. We call this feast Theophany, and on this day we have a special service of the Blessing of Waters.



7.�That we should not be compelled to take part in processions on the day of Corpus Christi�that we should not have to make such processions with our Mysteries inasmuch as our use of the Mysteries is different.



8.�Likewise that we should not be compelled to have the blessing of fire, the use of wooden clappers, and similar ceremonies before Easter, for we have not had such ceremonies in our Church until now, but that we should maintain our ceremonies according to the rubrics and the Typicon of our Church.




As you can see, from the first 8 articles, this was a union of two, and not a forced buy in of the other party's theology (nothing wrong with that, but it is different in some ways). As a result of this wording, it can be said that the union was made without acceptance of Western Doctrine.

In Christ,

Michael

John,

It appears we are not quite as far apart as I initially thought. I agree that despite some important exceptions the Melkites are not in formal communion with the Orthodox. I do hold out some degree of hope on this issue, but I obviously understand and respect the barriers involved.

"And why would the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they believe that Roman claims to Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction are heretical?"

Well, first I think we have to be careful with the terms "heresy" and "heretical". I'm not convinced all Orthodox would refer to those claims as heresy - even though they would certainly disagree with them. As far as why the Melkites are in communion with the West in spite of some theological differences, I would suggest that depends on where one draws the boundaries of legitamate theological disagreement. I tend to allow for more theolgoical "diversity" than some people are comfortable with. However, I do think you have a point on getting a straight answer from Melkites - myself included - on VI. Perhaps I will post a bit more later. All the best.

The doctrine of the procession as set forth in Brest is the Western doctrine (see Summa Theologiae, Part I Q 36, art. 3 and 4) as it was the doctrine of the East. The constant idea which is bantered around on this forum that there are two different theologies for East and West which are contradictory, and not complimentary, is at best silly.

Athanasius the L: You raise a valid point with regard to Rome insofar as it would appear that at times, Rome has not always been as explicitly clear as it should with regard to reunion matters with the East. But since these councils are understood by standard Catholic thinking to be genuine, authoritative ecumenical councils, not Latin synods, it stands to reason that their infallible dogmatic contents call upon an assent of faith by all Catholics and all who wish to become Catholic. I think the Code of Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches as well as Ad Tuendam Fidem point to this conclusion. As well as they should, as I cannot see how the Vatican could hold to anything else.

I assume the Vatican is serious about reunion, but, I trust, within the parameters of a seriousness for upholding the truth, I would think.

Michael: I don't believe there's anything in the Union of Brest Litovsk text that outrightly contradicts what I said, or meant to say, in my previous post, though I would acknowledge there's an apparent degree of artful diplomacy and ambiguity at work in the text as well. Certainly documents such as Brest Litovsk and Uzhorod do not establish an Eastern Catholic right to reject what the Church solemnly teaches. I would also commend to you Pope Benedict XIV's Etsi Pastoralis (1742), Pope Paul VI's Credo of the People of God (1968), the Code of Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches (1990), Cathechism of the Catholic Church (1993), and Ad Tuendam Fidem (1998) as all pointing toward the viewpoint I expressed.

Regards to all,
Robster

IM,

Look closer; the procession set forth in the Brest document is a denial of the filioquist heresy. Brest specifically denies the two sources and the double procession from the Father AND the Son. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit proceeding from one origin, the Father, and being sent by or THROUGH the Son is the Orthodox doctrine.

As far as I know, there are no longer any Latin rite filioquists insisting on a double procession. Even though they continue to say AND the Son, it is clear that Rome really teaches THROUGH the Son and does not intend anything outside of the original Nicene Creed.

This is a false dichotomy. In dialogues with the OO, do Eo downplay the value the first seven councils? It also seems to suggest that to remain "authentically Orthodox" Orthodox could not do this.

To me that always begs the question - by what weight and authority have post-Nicea (and post-1054) definitions of contradistinction (in relation to Rome) be understood to be official teachings rather than pious speculation?

For good or ill, if it is the commonly accepted teaching that the fullness of the Orthodox faith is fully reflected in the first seven councils, how can these teachings of contra-distinction be understood to be essential?

I have never read a Western Catholic worth his salt that maintained two sources or a double procession.

IM,

The old Catholic Encylopedia:

The dogma [sic] of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

Me either. "Filioquists"?

Thanks for listing these articles. (And, BTW, the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord was added to the Latin Calendar but not on the 6th of January, which is celebrated as the Epiphany -- Gifts of the Magi-- but on its Octave, January 13, perhaps to show respect for this important Sollemnity in the East, as it mentions in #6.)

It strikes me that the fundamental condition of communion is that we have the same Faith, and presumably, the parties all believed that condition was fulfilled.

When we start talking about doctrine, I think we have to distinguish two meanings of the term. Theology, in my book, is how one human explains the Faith to another, or draws relationships between one proposition of the Faith and another. If by doctrine that's what you mean, I can buy the idea that they did not accept necessarily what you call "Western doctrine".

Another meaning of doctrine is the proposing of the content of the Faith, which is done, for example, in the Creed, or, as another example, as we say in the Catholic Church today, "the Magisterium". That is neither Eastern nor Western, but comes from Christ. This form of doctrine would necessarily be covered under the rubric "one Faith", it seems to me. To give an example of this: the Church proposes that only men may be ordained priests. This is "content of the Faith"; reasons why this is so, are theological doctrine.

The union implies mutual acceptance of what is of the Faith, not necessarily the theological explanation on either side.

They use the term "double procession", but they do not admit two sources. In fact, it would be heresy for any Catholic to admit two sources. It was explicitely laid out in the Council of Florence that there is only one Source, the Father. Latins have been making this point for almost 1500 years now, and have consistantly stated that "from the Father through the Son" is an entirely accurate expression of the theology of the Filioque. The Union of Brest refuses to use the terminology and language of the Latins, but affirms the substance of the Doctrine.

Peace and God bless!