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

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 . . ."

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.

There are many ways to view the Anglican Communion crisis. I was refering to the problem of one local body taking a vote on a theological issue which is opposed to the expressed theology of the global body. In other words, how can one rite of the Church redefine the theology of the universal church? Sounds to me like the the Melkite Patriarch was arrogating to himself the role of the pope. The Melkite Patriarch while claiming to teach for his own church alone was actually teaching something at the heart of the Universal Church which is not at all within his competence. As for the continued belief in the Z-Initiative among Melkites, well, there is continued belief in WO among American Catholics. Would you argue that this belief in WO is somehow legitimate?

Dan,

Good to see you too!

I suppose what would happen depends on the issue. If the Eastern laity support the action of the Pope, then it will be accepted; if not, then another schism or move to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Take for example the Ruthenian Liturgy issue - if the Pope were to intervene and mandate the full Recension, I am sure that many here will accept the intervention wholly. On the other hand, if the Pope were to proclaim that Ruthenians are now Anglican-Use Catholics - well, I think we'd see a (justified) revolt.

Sounds to me like the the Melkite Patriarch was arrogating to himself the role of the pope.

Take for example the Ruthenian Liturgy issue - if the Pope were to intervene and mandate the full Recension, I am sure that many here will accept the intervention wholly. On the other hand, if the Pope were to proclaim that Ruthenians are now Anglican-Use Catholics - well, I think we'd see a (justified) revolt.

I personally, announce myself to be Byzantine Catholic and usually get a lot of questions of what I mean....

I then proceed to summarize that I am Catholic but follow Orthodox Traditions and the Holy Liturgy of St Johnst Chrysostom.

I am a very proud Byzantine Catholic and am proud of our accomplishment to keep the East represented in the One True Faith atmosphere of the Catholic Church. I personally include my brothers and sisters of Teh Orthodox faith in the One True Faith circle and just see them, as the Pope sees them, as indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed "many elements of sanctification and of truth." But he said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope -- a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them.

I really think that sums it up very well IMHO.

I like your reply very much Michael. It is nice to see the remnants of Sobornost have not died out in the Eastern Catholic churches. Afterall, the Iconoclast Council was rejected by the church as a whole.

Father, your view of the Melkite Church is flawed. The Melkite Church is not a rite, just as the Latin rite is not a Church.

If as you say, one Rite/Church cannot teach as universal for the whole then the Melkite argument regarding VC1 holds even more water..

On the other the Patriarch of one Rite cannot impose on the Universal Church his teaching--unless that Patriarch is the pope. (This may explain why Benedict eliminated the title, Patriarch of the West as he is not a mere Patriarch but the pope.)

The pope's role in the Catholic Church is less a matter of patriarchy than papacy.

This may explain why Benedict eliminated the title, Patriarch of the West as he is not a mere Patriarch but the pope.

I believe that the canons regarding papal primacy assume that any prudential exercise of "universal jurisdiction" in an unjust manner (one that threatens the legitimate traditions of a Patriarchal or sui juris Church...especially one of equal apostolic origin - Antioch) is not by its very nature binding.