www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecclesiology

Makes sense to me!

Peace and God bless!

Thank you, Ghosty !!!

I am going to read this over lunch.

-- John

Ghosty,

It was really good of you to type this. I'm a bit surprised it didn't stimulate more discussion. Perhaps, like the Declaration, its truths are self-evident

I'm a bit suprised myself! I've held off giving my own thoughts simply because I wanted to give others the chance to chime in first. Now it looks like I may have to get the ball rolling.

The only point I have a quibble with off the top of my head is #16, and then only in the statement that the Pope's "extra" powers arise from canonical legislation and not from Divine Institution. I think that view conflicts with #14, and a few others, and I don't think it's a solid working point.

If it's understood just to mean that the way such powers are exercised derives from canons and customs, I agree. I can't agree that the "power" itself arises purely from canonical custom and legislation, however, since we do believe (and #14 also states) that Christ Himself instituted Peter in a special role. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that these powers derive solely from canonical legislation, when even the most ancient customs and legislation cited Peter's unique role as assigned by Christ as the reason for the Pope having the unique role that he does.

I also think that Sayedna Zoghby's views on "Protestant Rites" were a bit odd. I can only assume that he wasn't especially familiar with the very real and substantial doctrinal differences that built up to the differences in practice between Latins and Protestants. The Presbyterians, for example, did not change their ritual because they prefered a different cultural style, but rather their change in ritual followed from an erroneous view on the Sacraments and Grace. I don't think it's possible to simply "put the Catholic back in" and retain the Protestant praxis, except in the case of the most ardently "Anglo-Catholic".

I think this particular gripe falls back on Sayedna Zoghby's view of the Reformation as being a "Latin issue", and therefore he didn't need to give much thought to it, as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox/Eastern Catholic issue which was immediate and quite important for him.

That's more of a side point, but I think it's worth bringing up because I do encounter some folks, from time to time, who do really think that the Protestant/Catholic divide is more of an internal issue rather than (in my view) the reality which is that the Protestant/Latin divide represents a severe doctrinal split in most cases, and is not internal but is equivalent to the split between the Catholics and the Arians in that it deals with substantial differences in doctrine.

Some Protestant groups are closer to the Latin Church in theology than others, but all of them in some way split doctrinally, and not just schismatically, and therefore can't be "reintroduced" into the Church as anything resembling what they are today (again with the notable exception which proves the rule, the Traditionalist Anglo-Catholics).

Peace and God bless!

The issue of Sophia in which the article appears has been made available for download on the internet by the Eparchy of Newton. Please see thier website www.melkite.org [melkite.org]

I'll take the wrist strain as penance, then.

Peace and God bless!

"According to tradition, the Patriarch (Batriyark) is the successor of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter. Tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter in 45 AD.
The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter was appointed by Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ to be His representative on earth. Then, the Patriarch is the representative of Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ on earth."
---From http://www.mliles.com/melkite/patriarch.shtml

1) The Patriarch of Antioch is a successor to Saint Peter; Antioch is a Petrine See
2)#14 and #16 seem to contradict with western eyes; however, His Grace Archbishop Elias, memory eternal points to the origin of the Roman successor in #14 while in the midst of affirming sheer episcopal authority as established by Christ and presidency. #16 clearly deals with the problem that arose of eqauting/confusing earthly power and authority with the divine charge to "strengthen your brethern".
3) Stop thinking of powers in earthly terms
4) #17-19 sums it up concisely

It is true that the Patriarch of Antioch is a successor of Peter on the See of Antioch, but there is no evidence from the first millenia, or since, that the Patriarch derived the same role from that succession that the Bishop of Rome did. That much is just a plain fact of history, and it doesn't serve the dialogue at all for the succession of Antioch to be brought up, as it only obfuscates the real issue, which is the very real and unique role that Rome, and no other See, aquired by its succession from Peter.


Certainly, but as I said above it does not derive the same unique character from this succession that Rome does. This much is plain just from the evidence of the first millenia. Antioch did not aquire any "presidency" as Rome did. The Pope is "first Bishop of the Church because he succeeds Peter", according to Sayedna Elias, and clearly this designation "first" precludes the inclusion of Antioch in these particular terms. Rome is a successor to Peter in a unique way, and hence is "first...because he succeeds Peter" in a way that Antioch does not, and has never claimed to.


I think the comment "with Western eyes" is unwarranted, though I'm sure you didn't intend anything bad by it. First of all because it is a vague term that can only be used to shut down any understanding and dialogue (if Western eyes can't understand what the East understands, then dialogue is quite simply impossible) and second because I've given nothing to indicate a "Western eyes" point of view. I'm merely stating the fact that in one point it is said that the presidency is from Christ, and in another it is said to arise from later canons.

Presidency entails a real role with real powers, whatever they may be. Whether they be merely of spiritual guidance, or if they include juridical authority, the fact remains that there is a presidency being spoken of which is unique and applies to the Pope. If it arises from Christ, then it doesn't arise simply from later canons, and visa versa. That is the only contradiction I'm speaking of, and it's not necessarily even present, as I said the terms could be understood in various ways.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in earthly terms", and I do take exception to being told to stop doing something that I haven't even been shown to be doing, especially when it's not clear to me what is even meant. Perhaps you will explain to my slow mind what you mean by this.

That being said, what we are discussing here is Earthly at least in the sense that it applies to the workings of the Church on Earth. The role of the Pope is a question of earthly functions, in this sense, and therefore must be regarded, or discarded, on those terms. We're not talking about a presidency in Heaven, after all.

I agree that those points are quite good and I stand by them completely. I'm simply pointing out that there is indeed a possible contradiction in asserting a real presidency appointed by Christ, which ..."cannot be dealing simply with primacy of honor or precedence when one speaks of the Bishop of Rome, recognized by Orthodoxy as the first among equals," but which is elsewhere said to be derived from canons.

That is why I point out that I can agree, without any reservations, with point #16 if it's speaking of way the presidency (which is the source of the "power" to which I refer) is exercised. If, however, it's refering to the presidency itself as arising from canonical norms, and not from Christ and recognized from ancient times as uniquely residing in Rome by virtue of succession from Peter (while not residing in Antioch, as I said above) then I see no way around the contradiction.

Incidently, in saying that Rome has presidency I'm not speaking in any way about what that entails in practice. I'm simply pointing out that it's real, it is derived from succession from Peter in manner unique to Rome, and that it entails more than simply primacy of honor or precedence, as Sayedna Elias says. All the details of this presidency are to be left to the Reunited Church to decide, with due regard to precedence in the first millenium.

Peace and God bless!

The role of the Pope of Rome and His Holy See didn't prove to be indispensibly unique to the other four sees in 1054.



The Holy Canons at the First Ecumencial Council certainly recognize the authority of Antioch as a See.



East and West are complementary and complimentary. The Theology of one does not quite fit into the other. In fact, Synodality in the West is understood as something completely different. The facts of these "developments" and the various failed attempts to address them proves that only a combined effort, without any "compromising", would be able to adequately address and possible heal the schism.

The question is whether or not the role of presidency as it functions in the Roman Catholic Church (and was only really established after the schism) is the same role that the Pope of Rome and His presidency could be in a united Church. The way the Eastern Catholic Churches have been treated suggests a negative answer. It has only been since Vatican II that a real Communion of Love (with a very heavy leaning toward the Eastern idea of Synodality) that the Role of the Primacy of the Pope of Rome even has a chance of compatibility with true Eastern Ecclesiology.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in earthly terms", and I do take exception to being told to stop doing something that I haven't even been shown to be doing, especially when it's not clear to me what is even meant. Perhaps you will explain to my slow mind what you mean by this.


Yes. However, the apostolic tradition was established by Christ and so was the primacy. This authority though, is not like the gentiles who Lord it over each other. It is not a worldly authority. Rather, the mandate of Christ for St. Peter to strengthen his brothers in faith is a mandat of love, not of lording over.



Which is why the article is brilliant! I agree.

All three of the historic Petrine sees (Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome) have a special place within the Church's hierarchy, but it is important to remember that all bishops, due to the unity of the mystery of Episcopal consecration, are successors of St. Peter, since they are successors of all the Apostles, which necessarily includes St. Peter.

We're not talking about 1054, but the first millenium and how we can learn from it in order to reunite. 1054 and what came later can't be used as a marker for discussing the lived tradition of the Church prior to 1000, after all. To see just how fruitless such a point is, simply turn it around and make a Latin statement of "the role of the other Patriarchs and bishops didn't prove indispensibly unique to the Church after 1054".

It's true that things were in flux, and disintegrating, long before 1054, and into the first millenium, but that is was simply the "living" of a person dying from a terminal illness. If the split, and its immediately prior causes, are going to be used as a reference point for proper Church function then we should abandon all discussion for Reunion out of hand; not only was Sayedna Elias' project in error, but anyone who makes an effort at reunion is in error. That certainly isn't a position that the Catholic Church is going to take, least of all the Melkite Church.

If Reunion is going to happen, we're going to have to look at the errors that both sides have made in history, and especially in the time of separation. Neither side is clean, not by a long shot. Flag waving for one side or the other is precisely what's kept us in the shadow of schism for so long.


Of course, and where have I ever questioned it? I'm refering to the fact that not just the Canons, but the statements made by the Holy Fathers throughout the early centuries refer to Rome in a manner that they never refer to Antioch. A Patriarchate, yes; the Holy See by which orthodox belief and practiced is to be checked, no. Even Sayedna Elias is pointing out that when we speak of Rome and its prerogatives we are not talking about a simple primacy of honor, but of a certain primacy of function whatever that may entail.


And I've never said otherwise. I'm not sure why you're addressing this to me, since I never spoke of Roman presidency as being anything like the way it manifested within the Roman Catholic Church. If I thought it was correct, wouldn't I have raised an objection to point #11?


Yes, and that is precisely my point. The primacy was established by Christ, not by Canons. I'm not talking about its specific uses and abuses, but about a very fundamental reality that must be addressed, and everything built up from that. The fact that the primacy was established by Christ doesn't justify abuses, even canonical abuses, of that primacy, but at the same time those abuses don't deny the fact that the primacy is ordained by God and not by men. We have to figure out how best to handle that fact, not sweep it under the rug.

Peace and God bless!

Yes, but again they are NOT successors in the exact same universal role as Rome is. Sayedna Elias makes that point himself.

They are successors of that role on within certain bounds, but Rome is uniquely so with regards the whole Church. Again, what that entails in terms of function and authority to act is a matter for discussion.

Peace and God bless!

Rome's universal role is not a divinely revealed truth, but is based instead upon Rome's rank ". . . among the diocese of Christendom," and upon "canonical custom and legislation" [cf. point number 16 of the article on Zoghby's ecclesiology].

This perspective is precisely what #14 contradicts. Either presidency was conferred on Peter by Christ, and handed down through Rome, or it is a canonical construct. This is the contradiction that I've been pointing out.

The fact that Rome was looked to, and spoken of, as holding this kind of presidency LONG before any Church-wide Canons were constructed, and that such Canons were not referenced by those (in both East and West) who made such claims on behalf of Rome, shows that we're not at all dealing with merely canonical norms and legislation.

The powers that were derived from this role in later times, for example the appointment of Bishops, or the vetoing of the local synods of other Churches, may well have been based on Canons and custom, but the presidency (in whatever sense it was applied) most certainly was not.

In other words, presidency could no more pass away from Rome to another See than it could pass away from Peter; if it were purely a matter of Canons and custom it could. What that presidency entails, however, is something that has been modified over time, and those details (such as direct Roman control over the ecclesial happenings in other Churches, as just one example) most certainly can change and pass away.

It is this defining of the real, Christ-established presidency and primacy of Rome, and the functions that role entails, which must be worked out by the Orthodox and the Catholic Church together. It could be something with hardly any practical effect at all, like requiring a once-a-year homily addressed to the whole Church for the purpose of spiritual growth and unity, or something to which the basic functions of the world-wide Church are intimately tied in a juridicial sense, but the fact of the presidency can't simply be voted out of history.

Peace and God bless!

There is no contradiction. Nowhere in article no. 14 does it say that the pope's primacy is a divinely revealed truth; instead, that article speaks of Peter himself being made protos within the Apostolic College, and mentions the papal office only tangentially. Later articles (nos. 16, 17, 19, 20, and 21) explain the nature of the papal office as it developed in the Church as an institution that was given certain functions by the ecumenical councils and later ecclesiastical custom, but none of that concerns divine revelation. All the bishops of the Church are sacramentally equal, and so no bishop can be said to be over any other bishop (cf. Apostolic Canon 34). In other words, primacy is not supremacy .