www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Byzantine Catholics identifying themselves as Orthodox?

Years ago I was once told by a Melkite priest that the Eastern Canon Law is not obligatory on the Melkite Church because the Patriarch refused to sign it.

Joe

That Melkite priest was terribly mistaken.

The Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches became "law" upon its promulgation by the supreme legislative authority in the Catholic Church, who is the Pope.

It does not need the signature of any other hierarch, much less that of the Melkite Patriarch, for the Code to become the governing law for all Eastern Catholic Churches. Corollarily, it does not excuse the Melkite Patriarch or any Melkite priest NOT to follow the Canons.

The prudent move for the Melkites should be to work for the amendment, or the total abrogation, of the Code if they deem it to be a derogation of their rights as an Eastern Catholic Church. No need for the upmanship.

The Code was a product of laborious stduies on the part of many Eastern Catholic hierarchs under the sponsorsip of the Congregation for the Oriental Cnhrches.

Having said that, it is up to the Melkites to follow or not to follow the provisions of the Code. It's their own look out.

Amado

But isn't it odd that some would beleieve that a canon would not apply to them since this is specifically the canon law that these Churches operate under?

I was hoping that Fr. Steele or Apotheoun would chime in as well because it seems to me that some Eastern Catholics, then don't accept what canon 43 says.
I'm not trying to accuse anyone, just trying to make sense of this as it really seems confusing.

Bishop John Elya of the Melkite Church does consider this canon to be binding.
http://www.melkite.org/Questions/R-9.htm

Papal Encyclicals and the Melkites: "My question is regarding the position of an Eastern Catholic (a Greek-Catholic, such as a Melchite) as to the pope's encyclicals. In particular, this came up in a discussion on Humanae Vitae and a person made the statement that the encyclical only pertained to the Roman Catholics and
didn't concern us at all, especially since the "Orthodox Church" has a different position on birth control. It is my understanding that we are not "Orthodox in communion with Rome" but we are Greek Catholics in union with Rome therefore we are obliged to accept Roman doctrines such as Purgatory, Papal Infallibility and their positions on birth control. Is this true?

Bishop John's Answer: When we declared our union with Rome - in consistency with Apostolic tradition interrupted somehow by historical circumstances - we accepted the Catholic faith in its entirety. We do recognize the authority of the Pope of Rome, including universal jurisdiction and infallibility for whatever concerns faith and morals. It is true that the Western Theologians themselves have their own debates concerning these points; so we should not be "more papist that the Pope;" but Catholic is Catholic and truth is truth. We cannot pose as "Orthodox united to Rome" only for what suits us. I do mean it when we pray every day, at the Divine Liturgy, for "unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit."

There is no 'Eastern truth' vs 'Western truth'. Truth is one. It may be articulated according to various cultural expressions, but truth is super-cultural. Truth should not be restricted by "party line" positions. We should accept or reject ideas for their worth and not for an artificial attachment to a given "identity." The Church teaches truth. If something is true, it would be absurd to say "Oh, we don't believe that in the East." This seems to be where we get short-circuited in ecumenical "dialogue." All too frequently, such "dialogue" seems to presuppose a relativism where you speak "your truth" and I'll speak "my truth" and we'll just leave it at that. A sort of ecumenical schizophrenia.


As to the Catholic position on birth control, we have no choice to accept it or leave it. If we leave the Catholic position, can we still pretend to be Catholic? "Humanae Vitae" is a given. However time is too short here to elaborate on its interpretations and implications by various theologians and National Episcopal Conferences. I must add, however, that Humanae Vitae is now much more appreciated in many academic circles as we come to realize its merit, especially regarding the dignity of marriage and the great abuses in recent years such as surrogate motherhood, sperm banks and cloning of humans, to name but few.

Here are two relevant canons from OUR Eastern Catholic Church Law:

c. 597 CCEO: "The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office (munus), possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held."

c. 599: :A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching of faith and morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim with a definitive act.; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching."

Amen!

There is no such thing as "Roman" doctrines that apply only to Roman Catholics.

What is taught by the Pope in terms of faith and morals applies to all Catholics of whatever liturgical tradition.

Amen and thank you!

This seems to be the popular and prevalent view of many Melkite clergy I have met - to be fair, I have met only about 10, all but three of the "Melkite by Choice variety" which is not an aspersion, but I wonder if it has a correlation not unlike certain EO convert clergy whose enthusiasm leads them to be "More eastern than the Patriarch"...

I'll be honest, it leaves me confused... But, that's not really all that hard to do.

Hmmm

Simple

Actually I've heard Bishop John is in the minority (i.e. very Latin leaning), and I don't know, but don't believe is even Arabic. Bishop Zoghby and the Melkite synod approved the idea that they believe everything Orthodoxy teaches, and they are certainly no converts. I've read some other things by Bishop Zoghby that I found quite interesting.

We have only to look to the Anglicans to see where doctrine by vote leads. A minority can be the bearers of the blessed truth indeed. Look at Germany. Look at TEC.

Now, there are significant problems with the Melkite position. It has been rejected by Rome and by the Orthodox. As it was most heartily advocated by Bp. Zoghby, a Vat. II council father, it needs to be looked upon as one of those post conciliar enthusiasms which have swept the church in the name of lofty goals but which did not make sense on the ground. Examples are everywhere: WO, GO, Catholic Anglican union, contraception, divorce and remarriage, charismatic renewal, folk masses, Godspell, etc.

Ratzinger has dismissed the initiative as premature. It strikes me as just the Eastern version of the naive post Vat. II ecumenical initiatives now abandoned in the West. It is an excess based more on emotion than reason. Without the hard work now being undertaken by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in real dialogues, this rush to reconcile can only be D.O.A.

Bishop John Elya is now retired (as June '04) and in fact was born Sep 16 1928 in Maghdouch�, Lebanon. I don't speak Arabic, but when I have heard him address Arabic speakers in what sounded like Arabic, they seemed to understand!

But for the life of me I don't see why you bring this up or how this is pertient. Would being a "real arab" make him more Orthodox? Would being "not even an arab" explain the real or percieved latinizations?

Please forgive if I am reading too much into this, but I have seen insinuations elsewhere (regarding Greek Catholics) that the ethnic backgrounds of folks who are "Greek Catholic by choice" are issues in ways that the convert clergy of EO jurisdictions don't seem to be, baring in mind that 33% - 50% of the Orthodox seminarians are converts themselves.

I can readily see why the Melkites would reject parts of the EEOC, they see it as a Latin document about the Eastern Churches, not an Eastern document about herself. This statement is true in some sense.

As to Catechisms, the Melkite Catechism doesn't refer to VC1 as Ecumenical, but as a General Council of the West. This Catechism is a true, valid, and authoritative Catholic Catechism, reflective of Melkite faith.

Hey there MT, good to talk to you over here!

Was the first vatican council attended by the Eastern Catholic Bishops? I don't know so that's why I was asking. If so, then wouldn't that indicate that it was an ecumenical council?

How does one determine whether or not a council was ecumenical?
Does anyone know what the criteria are, and do the Eastern and Western Churches have different criteria?

How do we reconcile that the west says it was ecumenical and thus binding on the whole Church while some Eastern Bishops say no. This is all very confusing to me.

It seems that Eastern Catholics have no trouble with some tension in some areas, but to this latin, I don't see how it can be.


Thanks

I have the three volume Melkite Catechism and, interestingly enough there is no mention of papal infallibility or authority either. There is simply mention of being in union with the Pope.

Joe

A minority can be right and eventually win the day, which in the end may pay off for the Melkites; and since the acceptance of doctrine in the church has been through a process of reception (even if carried only for a time by a slim minority), they could eventually be shown to be right. Doctrine indeed is not by vote, but by the eventual recognition by the church that something is true, and therefore enters in to its consciousness of the church.

I'm not sure what relation the Anglicans have to this. The problems in the Anglican world are not really around doctrine being up for a vote, but that in the churches of the developed world they've lost the willingness to enforce doctrine of any kind. They're really inheritors of the Victorian eras increasing crisis of faith. The majority of the Anglican world remains quite conservative.


And the Melkites, or at least most of them it appears, continue to believe in it.


Sorry, I meant an election of the Arabic Melkite Synod. I believe he was a direct appointment of Rome, and IIRC was one of two Melkite bishops who opposed the initiative of Bishop Zoghby.

Dear Friends,

What an interesting thread!

In the UGCC, there is no common consensus, among the hierarchy or laity, about these issues.

There is what our Patriarch and Synod would like, and then there are the myriad interpretations that counter that (usually in favour of Latin Church "cultural expression")

As for "truth" - well, truth does NOT and cannot exist outside the various local, spiritual-cultural expressions that embody and communicate it.

The two - objective Christian truth and the cultural/canonical-theological context of the various Particular Churches - are so entwined that an Eastern Catholic can look at what the Latin Church teaches and legitimatley say, "That is not what we believe!" And vice-versa.

And yet the two, EC's and RC's, are in full union with one another.

As our parish priest used to say, "We hold the same faith as the RC's do, but in terms of how we understand it, we could not be further apart . . ."

Something to contemplate.

Also, a comment on the term "Orthodox." Both East and West use this term, even though today it refers specifically to the Orthodox East.

But in the EC historical experience, that term has come to mean something altogether similar and yet distinct.

"Orthodox" can mean the spiritual-cultural totality of Christian expression and experience that is the EC heritage and toward which we can and should strive. It means the fullness of the Greco-Slavic Orthodox tradition of New Rome-Constantinople (our Mother Church after all) that is also encapsulated by the term "Romaios" or "Rhoum."

Fr. Bohdan Lypsky, our former parish priest at St Nicholas' Church (that figured in the movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding), affirmed that this term, Orthodox, is much more meaningful as a definition of who EC's are in every which way. He affirmed that too much emphasis on "Catholic" would tend to lead us toward a Latinate mentality that we were called upon by Rome to divest ourselves of.

There is nothing wrong with "Orthodox Catholic" for EC's since it demonstrates a clear understanding of our spiritual and ecclesial identity, rather than an identity that sees itself as a version of a (Latin)Catholic one.

Alex