www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Melkite Answers to Common Questions

Well, if the Ravenna Statement, paras 35-39 are to be believed, there have been no true "Ecumenical Councils" since 787, because no council since then has been universally received as being ecumenical. All general synods since that time are binding only upon the particular Churches that have received them as binding, and that authority is revokable.

In fact, the authority of councils has and continues to be revokable until their teaching is internalized and becomes part of the Tradition of the Church, regardless of whether that council calls itself ecumenical or not. This works both in the East and the West. The West accepted the authority of the Synod of Constantinople of 869-870, then accepted the authority of the Synod of 879-880, which revoked the acts of the previous Synod, and then, after more than several centuries, decided to repudiate the Synod of 879-880 and accept the Synod of 869-870. Similarly, though it is called "ecumenical", the Latin Church repudiated much of the Council of Constance through the Council of Florence.

I thought the responsibility for deciding where authority resided lay with the whole Church, particularly through its Bishops, amongst whom the Bishop of Rome should have first place if one is in communion with him (whether you are Orthodox, Catholic, eastern or western this is the case). If I missed the decree that embraced individualism and allowed every man and their dog to discern the will of the church for themselves I apologise.

First, while the responsibility for teaching true doctrine lies with the bishops, the responsibility for defending the true faith lies with all the faithful. History time and again reveals episodes when bishops have fallen into error (yes, even including the Bishop of Rome), and it has been the lower clergy and the laity (particularly monastics) who stood firm and were vindicated.

Second, you seem to assume that the voice of some bishops (e.g., the Melkites and Ukrainians) are less authoritative than others (e.g., the Latins). Since there is no unanimity among the bishops on this matter, diversity of opinion is still permissible.

Thanks for this reference which I recall now from a prior posting. Fr. Laurent adopts here something of a scorched theology policy: deny any point that the other side can use, even if it can be considered a valid point; deny the other all sustenance even though we too may starve. But at least he does make the point if it isn’t missed amidst all the denying (p 268-9):

ok but not good enough. The text says “will give”; only Peter for sure will be given the keys and by Christ Himself. This is what I mean, for instance, by explicit: if one searches scripture for all forms of homoousios one does not find it; search for all forms of give and key in a verse and one finds, explicitly, Matt. 16:19 (and Rev. 9:1).

With or after – to be complete, not at all, since they may be distinct from the binding and losing, or even through or from Peter. Since, after all, as Fr. Laurent goes on to say, there is an acceptance by Orthodox theology that all bishops share the (shifting the imagery but not the point; see below) chair of Peter:

[emphasis added]

It seems that too often Orthodox in their zeal to deny papal claims question the plain words of scripture, even beyond the accepted liturgical expression that some maintain is the essence of primary theology.

[emphasis added]

So why here and now object to Peter’s headship, that he is coryphaeus, as given by the above Orthodox interpretation of Mat 16:19; that explicitly "Peter alone was given the keys"? Is there more to be said to get to the “papal claims”? Of course. But what should not be said is what one today can not possibly know with a comprehensive but anachronistic self-assurance that only detracts from what is objective such as the opinion “They simply did not consider this praise and recognition as relevant in any way to the papal claims...”

Personally, I think I would start by making sure that the person asking the question knew that I've always been in communion with Rome. Well, not literally always, of course, only since I was a couple months old. But you see my point: it's different than if I entered into full communion with Rome as an adult.

Yes, EWTN is the network in question:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

Although I note some difference in wording. Perhaps the page on the EWTN website has been revised since it was quoted by melkite.org. For example, note that it doesn't say


but rather

It might be that this comment went "under the radar", inasmuch as many Catholics simply aren't very familiar with Orthodoxy.

Fr. Deacon Tony,

Are you saying that the only interpretation is that Peter alone received the keys?

Fr. Laurent also gives that as a possible interpretation (p. 266).

Where does Fr. Laurent deny Peter's headship or that he is the coryphaeus?


Where do you mean?

Thanks for finding that. I'm wondering where the text for this file came from? It looks like something from the early 90s.

Surprising how it explains the apparent audacity of the "Eastern Rite" folks thinking they should be allowed to bring their married clergy tradition outside of their "homelands":

Just reading further from Melkites Are Often Misunderstood [melkite.org] .

The EWTN file states:


The Melkite page response:


This approach seems to differ from some of the statements from the first post in this thread. I think Roman Rite Catholics would more likely accept this approach but are less likely to accept the approach from this thread.

The current practice of the Armenian Apostolic Church is routinely to allow the marriage of deacons. In the wake of the genocide there was a time when ordained priests were allowed to marry. I have personally met (and respect) two of them!

The above "Quote:" is from the official site, Eparchy of Newton. It is responding to:


A possible source of confusion might be other, unofficial sites that have a lot of visibility and information and come across quite convincingly as telling it like it is. One such, for instance, which even speaks of/for "Byzantine Catholic" beliefs in general has this to say, for instance, about the Immaculate Conception:

link [mliles.com]

Might this confuse a western Catholic? I'm even confused by the line of argument. And even more so when the same site has:
link [mliles.com]

Or is it as in the initial post of this thread:

Or is it ...????

I agree with what you're saying here completely. As far as I can understand it, the quote from the Melkite source is saying that there are no disagreements about the doctrinal contents expressed by statements of "the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, Purgatory, and the Filioque," even if there are different ways of explaining or interpreting the statements of those doctrinal contents themselves.

Even leaving aside how to properly understand what that particular source is saying, though, here's something else to consider along the very same lines. I was really struck by an apparent total difference of opinion between something said by the first poster (and apparently endorsed by some of the others here?) and what has been said by the Melkite hierarchy, particularly past Patriarchs and Bishops. The first poster writes:

However, the Melkite Holy Synod, presided over by Patriarch Maximos IV and including Archbishop Elias Zoghby, said the following at Vatican II (bolding added at most relevant spots):


These quotes clearly show that the Melkite hierarchy affirmed that the pope is infallible, that his definitions are irreformable and without appeal, and that this is a doctrine and immutable (unchangeable) dogma. What gives? (It is true that the Melkite hierarchy pushed very strongly to have the council recognize the rights and prerogatives of bishops in light of a more nuanced understanding of papal primacy/infallibility, etc., but they still clearly accepted that dogma.)

The source for those two quotes is a book by Archimandrite Robert Taft, titled The Melkite Church at the Council, available in its entirety and for free here: http://www.melkite.org/xcouncil/CouncilIntro.htm

The previous post provides an important resource. Thanks for finding and providing it.

No problem. Thanks for your help in getting the formatting fixed. I'm not sure why it didn't come out properly from the get-go (it did on my preview of the post!).

Since the book that I linked to in my last post is rather large, I thought I should also add that the specific chapter from which I drew the preceding quotes from the Melkites is Chapter 5, "The Constitution of the Church."