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

Yes, but my point was this. I believe everything that my mathematics textbook teaches. Does that mean that I believe nothing else? No; I believe other things as well. Furthermore, suppose that my mathematics textbook says toward the front that it was printed in Chicago. There's a sense in which that isn't part of what the mathematics book teaches; while it does say in the book that it was printed in Chicago, the mathematics book doesn't teach that it was printed in Chicago -- it teaches math, and that's it! So, the statement, "I believe everything that X teaches," means just that. It doesn't mean that I don't believe additional things, and it doesn't mean that I believe things asserted by X but not part of what X teaches. In the case of the Zoghby Profession, then, it needs to be clarified whether there are any extra things believed, and also what counts as being "taught" by Orthodoxy.

About the second of those matters, there is some good reason to think that all that is included in clause 1 of the Zoghby Profession of Faith as "taught by Orthodoxy" is the teaching of the seven ecumenical councils. When the Melkite Holy Synod issued its document about reunification with the Antiochian Patriarchate, this is (part of) what it said (http://www.melkite.org/sa3.htm):

Here it is clear that the Holy Synod thinks intercommunion is possible because there is "unity in the essence of faith," where "that unity" appears to refer to the unity in belief concerning the teachings of the seven ecumenical councils, as it existed in the first millennium. They do not regard unity to be established conclusively with respect to the Bishop of Rome, apparently, because that is a subject that remains open to further discussion. So, this is some indication that the Synod understood themselves to "believe everything that Eastern Orthodox teaches" in the sense that they have unity in the essence of the faith, i.e., the authoritative teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy, i.e., the teachings of the seven ecumenical councils.

Patriarch Gregory III, the current Melkite Patriarch, made comments to the Orientale Lumen conference in 2002 that are also suggestive of this understanding (www.mliles.com/melkite/patriarchol2002.doc [mliles.com]). He said (emphases added):

This quote suggests again that the ground for communion ought to be the shared Creed, Liturgy, seven ecumenical councils, etc. It doesn't seem to suggest that there is agreement with Eastern Orthodoxy about absolutely everything, for it indicates that there are "two new dogmas," those of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, that are accepted by Melkites, albeit with their own "Eastern vision about them." The Patriarch says "almost everything" is shared in common.

Later, he adds this:

Now, the Patriarch is presumably talking about the part of the council that says that the other bishops retain their own rights and privileges even despite the pope's primacy. But still, there is reliance here on the decisions of a post-schism council not accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy.

The above two quotes appear in a paper by the current Melkite Patriarch in which he is discussing the Zoghby Initiative, among other things. He seems to be saying, ultimately, that the disagreement over primacy is not a "theological" difference," and that, in his view, the ecclesiology of Rome is reconcilable with Orthodox ecclesiology. Meanwhile, the essence of the faith is shared in common, in such a way that intercommunion ought to be hoped for right now. This does not mean that he rejects the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, or the decisions of the Council of Florence. Overall, then, all of this seems to suggest that the Zoghby Initiative was not understood as something allowing Melkites to not accept post-schism, "Latin" doctrinal definitions and disregard post-schism councils; instead, the main point seems to have been that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are compatible even with these post-schism developments -- the ecclesiologies are reconcilable, and, "in light of the teachings of the seven ecumenical councils . . . [there is] unity in the essence of the faith." That's all, from what I can tell.

Okay, but I think you may have just thrown out papal infallibility with the bathwater, as it is not a part of the Creed nor the Seven Ecumenical Councils. If that is all that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches, it is also all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches. The rest is, as you say, "printed in Chicago."

Here are some words to ponder from the Melkite Patriarch that seem to indicate his postion.


Also, on the issue of Infallibily and later councils

According to his Beatitude the teachings of these councils are not binding on Eastern Catholics as they are only Local Councils of the Western Church. They are not set in stone and need to be clarified.

http://www.mliles.com/melkite/patholyapostles.pdf

Sorry, the idea that I was trying to express was that the Roman Catholic Church (and the Eastern Catholic Churches) endorse the Creed, the seven ecumenical councils, etc., plus additional things that the Orthodox apparently do not. The Orthodox, though, endorse the Creed, the seven ecumenical councils, etc. All share that.

I'm glad that you mentioned this document. I'm not at all inclined to think that it ought to be understood the way that you suggest in your glosses, though (in fact, I think it probably shouldn't be understood that way at all). I'll say why.

The first quote requires some larger context. Here it is:

Now, the train of thought here seems to go like this: The ecumenical movement is in crisis; Catholics and Orthodox have stopped talking. This urges us to take up the cause in our own prophetical role. But (notice: the "but" is stating an apparent opposition to the Melkites taking up their proper role) some Roman Catholics don't fully accept the ecclesiology of Vatican I and Vatican II. This is why we can and must get into the ecumenical arena and work.

Now, given the word "but," which appears to make it sound as if the fact that some Roman Catholics don't fully accept the ecclesiology of Vatican I and II is an opposition to the Melkites playing a role in ecumenism, how are we to understand this? Well, there are at least two ways in which some Roman Catholics don't fully accept the ecclesiology of Vatican I and II. Some might deny that the pope is infallible, true. But why would that be opposed to the Melkites taking up their role in the ecumenical movement? It doesn't seem that it would. On the other hand, some Roman Catholics might not fully accept Vatican I and II because they might not be accepting of the not purely monarchical, non-exaggerated, non-ultramontane view of the pope (expressed particularly in Vatican II, but also to some degree in Vatican I) in which other bishops, including Eastern bishops and patriarchs, have true rights and privileges from Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit rather than as mere "delegates" of the pope, and in which the pope's infallibility is presented as a corollary of the Church's infallibility. In other words, they might have much too strong views about the pope, and much too limited views about the rights and privileges of the bishops (particularly the Eastern bishops), in opposition to what is actually taught at Vatican II in particular. That would be an obvious obstacle to Melkite involvement in the ecumenical movement between Rome and Orthodoxy. In fact, this is precisely the misunderstanding of Vatican I that Patriarch Maximos IV warned about at Vatican II:

So, to put the point shortly, your first quote appears to be best understood as saying that some people don't fully accept Vatican II and the proper understanding of Vatican I according to which the bishops, including the Eastern Catholic bishops, have full rights and privileges by virtue of their office and are not as mere delegates of the ultramontane pope. That could prevent Melkites from taking up their prophetical role in the ecumenical movement. But it is also precisely why Melkites must take initiative and work to play a real, assertive role. On this understanding, there is no (even implicit) denial of the dogma of Vatican I or Vatican II to be found in this quote at all.

The second quote you cite says only that we must "explain and clarify" topics that are obstacles to full communion with the Orthodox. Yes, these include the primacy of the pope, Western councils, and other theological dogmas (note: the quote says that they are theological dogmas). Nothing said in this quote says what you assert, namely that, "the teachings of these councils are not binding on Eastern Catholics as they are only Local Councils of the Western Church." It only says that those councils were not all ecumenical, which is obviously true, and that the topics must be explained and clarified (not denied, as in the first post that started this thread). It is still possible for non-ecumenical, local councils to produce infallible declarations of dogma, insofar as they may include infallible declarations of the pope. This seems to be the case with Trent, for example, about which Patriarch Maximos IV said (I quote again):

That contradicts your way of glossing the quote. Again, then, given the total evidence (including also previous quotes I've provided from Melkite hierarchs about the infallibility of the pope and the authority of Vatican I), the best way to understand what you've quoted seems to be to understand it as saying that there are post-schism dogmas that we must accept, but that must be explained and clarified to our Orthodox brethren and said not to be the result of truly ecumenical councils. They can still be binding, even so.

In summary, these appear to be two not-entirely-clear quotations that do not really challenge the position I've been speaking on behalf of here, and in fact seem best explained by that position. The overall evidence still seems to suggest to me that Melkites are to accept post-schism "Latin" dogma as authoritative, though it is permissible to give them a more Eastern interpretation.

I just want to clarify a portion of what I said, but my time to edit the post has expired.

I said, "On the other hand, some Roman Catholics might not fully accept Vatican I and II because they might not be accepting of the not purely monarchical, non-exaggerated, non-ultramontane view of the pope (expressed particularly in Vatican II, but also to some degree in Vatican I) in which other bishops, including Eastern bishops and patriarchs, have true rights and privileges from Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit rather than as mere "delegates" of the pope, and in which the pope's infallibility is presented as a corollary of the Church's infallibility."

I find that a bit hard to parse, so, in case there's trouble, I'd rephrase it to say, "On the other hand, some Roman Catholics might not fully accept Vatican I and II because they might not be accepting of the view that the pope is not the purely monarchical source of all power in the Church, i.e., the view expressed at Vatican II and I according to which other bishops, including Eastern bishops and patriarchs, have true rights and privileges from Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit rather than as mere "delegates" of the pope, and according to which the pope's infallibility is a corollary of the Church's infallibility."

If a moderator wants to go ahead and change my original post (and delete this one), that'd be fine with me!

There seems to be a supposition in posts in this thread that what the Orthodox believe can easily be defined in first millennium terms (seven councils, no infallibility, etc.).

I think it is worth making the point that this situation is not so simple - there are many trends and movements and phases in Orthodoxy that are not taken into account in this definition. For example, the "aerial toll houses" are rapidly becoming dogmatised (mainstream or consensus Orthodox opinion)in some sections of Orthodoxy. There was a period where the Immaculate Conception was mainstream Orthodox opinion as well. Orthodoxy is a living Church, and it is a mistake to try and define what it believes based solely on some checklist based primarily on its pre-schism state.

Excellent points.

Answering some old questions:
No; rather the exegetical point is that scripture only attests that Peter was given the keys by Christ.

Nowhere, but I did not say that. Regarding the clarity of his scriptural interpretations, however...

For instance, the bottom of p266 to p267 where he brings the keys into Mat 18 and John 20; his (strawman) Sola Scriptura characterization as dogmatizing apart from Tradition and the Fathers on p 268.

How is one to interpret your (pl) "why is it needed?", the "it" being the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and, in particular, the dogma of Papal Infallibility? For the latter should be seen as a service to the Church, giving the mercy of peace and assurance of certitude rather than the burden of having to ask or object, "why is it needed?"

The Jesuits of Civilta` Cattolica told Pope Pius IX, "Define a dogma, ANY dogma. Define it alone: we need this for infallibility." As Holy Writ has it in another place but in similar circumstances, "What further need have we of witnesses?" INDEED!!!

The Fathers were not so much interested in certitude as they were truth. The whole demand for certitude is pretty much a product of the Reformation. As we never experienced the Reformation, we do not have that demand, nor feel its need.

"What further need have we of witnesses?" Yes, the words of Caiaphas, indeed. A reference is always nice to insure that what those "Jesuits" said is conveyed by the English. I wonder what the "Jesuits of Civilta` Cattolica" would be saying of this today. And what are the "similar circumstances"?

Anyway, what further need do you have of witnesses after the undocumented words of the "Jesuits of Civilta` Cattolica" have suggested something?

There are the words of a primary source, of course. In part (emphasis added):


**************************************************
Ineffabilis Deus

Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception (December 8, 1854)

PREPARATION FOR THE DEFINITION
...
That we might proceed with great prudence, we established a special congregation of our venerable brethren, the cardinals of the holy Roman Church, illustrious for their piety, wisdom, and knowledge of the sacred scriptures. We also selected priests, both secular and regular, well trained in the theological sciences, that they should most carefully consider all matters pertaining to the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin and make known to us their opinion.

THE MIND OF THE BISHOPS

Although we knew the mind of the bishops from the petitions which we had received from them, namely, that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin be finally defined, nevertheless, on February 2, 1849,[27] we sent an Encyclical Letter from Gaeta to all our venerable brethren, the bishops of the Catholic world, that they should offer prayers to God and then tell us in writing what the piety and devotion of their faithful was in regard to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. We likewise inquired what the bishops themselves thought about defining this doctrine and what their wishes were in regard to making known with all possible solemnity our supreme judgment.

We were certainly filled with the greatest consolation when the replies of our venerable brethren came to us. For, replying to us with a most enthusiastic joy, exultation and zeal, they not only again confirmed their own singular piety toward the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, and that of the secular and religious clergy and of the faithful, but with one voice they even entreated us to define our supreme judgment and authority the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. In the meantime we were indeed filled with no less joy when, after a diligent examination, our venerable brethren, the cardinals of the special congregation and the theologians chosen by us as counselors (whom we mentioned above), asked with the same enthusiasm and fervor for the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God.

Consequently, following the examples of our predecessors, and desiring to proceed in the traditional manner, we announced and held a consistory, in which we addressed our brethren, the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. It was the greatest spiritual joy for us when we heard them ask us to promulgate the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God.[28]

Therefore, having full trust in the Lord that the opportune time had come for defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, which Holy Scripture, venerable Tradition, the constant mind of the Church, the desire of Catholic bishops and the faithful, and the memorable Acts and Constitutions of our predecessors, wonderfully illustrate and proclaim, and having most diligently considered all things, as we poured forth to God ceaseless and fervent prayers, we concluded that we should no longer delay in decreeing and defining by our supreme authority the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. And thus, we can satisfy the most holy desire of the Catholic world as well as our own devotion toward the most holy Virgin, and at the same time honor more and more the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord through his holy Mother -- since whatever honor and praise are bestowed on the Mother redound to the Son.

THE DEFINITION

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

[Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.]


**************************************************

He was not in conformity with those Jesuits here, nor did he conform after Vatican I.

What is objectionable about Ineffabilis Deus is the anathema for not following the definition. Really, as this is a secondary matter no anathema should be given. Obviously, Rome has the right to its theological assumptions, but she needs to keep in mind that her way isn't everyone's way.

I would trust that the Fathers and most everyone would understand that certitude is correlative to truth.

I do not understand the basis for the theological isolationism expressed, nor do I think it wise in today's world of mass communication, nor is it historically accurate in the absolute manner stated. And the need may not be felt by some but it is amply demonstrated.