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

With no disrespect intended, and not seeking a rude colloquy; while also realizing this is clearly off-topic, I feel compelled to respectfully disagree with StuartK's statement as framed.

Certainly truth is absolute and universal and thus exclusive of all fallacy. Therefore knowing truth gives us certitude to stand firm against the avalanche of falseness which characterizes this evil age. To say we need no certitude is to imply that we may be satisfied with a mere subjective, uncertain perception or fuzzy feeling. No doubt some so stand, but I know of no deliniation of Christians operating without certitude.

I submit that certitude produces the very demominations we see today. It is certitude which causes likeminded persons to form fellowships whether they be Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant or otherwise. Certitude binds together like minds and drives minds that differ to separate. If we say we have the "mind of Christ" as did the Apostle Paul, then we are forced to adopt the same certitude that charicterized the Apostle's walk.

That said, I must confess, having arrived at certitude regarding truth and the ways of God, concience forces me to depart the subjective elements of Christendom to seek a simple way according to the primitive teachings of Paul in the spirit of Heb.13:13. I have not yet arrived. Nevertheless I am judged an heretic by the Church of my fathers because I eschew their elevation of men, systematic ritual and empty pagentry. I am judged an heretic by Protestants because I give scriptural authority to the Greek Seventy of the Apostles, not the Rabbi's 10th century Masoretic rescension which they prefer.

Such are the results of this certitude. So, from this "outside" perspective much within the Church indeed seems to hang on certitude variously held. Certainly, no group long remains cohesive without it.


μιχαηλ ο αιρετικον

StuartK, I just want to reiterate that I would love to hear some of your comments about the material that I've recently posted in this thread. Given that you've indicated that, in your view and in what you apparently take to be the view of the Melkite hierarchy, the decisions of post-schism "Latin" councils are non-binding, and Bishop John Elya's stance concerning them and other papal definitions is a fringe view, I'd like to hear what you think of the statements of the Melkite Holy Synod to Vatican II. Just to distill a few particular statements, we have them saying:

1. "[T]he pope is infallible . . . it is true that the definitions of the pope are irreformable and without appeal"

2. The "primacy and infallibility of the successor of Peter" is "immutable dogma"

3. The pope "formulates an indisputable affirmation 'ex sese' [of himself] . . . neither does the pope need the canonical consent of the bishops and the faithful to be infallible"

4. The pope "reserves for himself the right to judge as a last resort, discerning what in the wishes of his brothers comes or does not come from the Holy Spirit"

5. "The indissolubility of marriage has been solemnly defined by the Council of Trent. It is an object of faith for every Catholic and closes the door to all discussion. Period."

What do you think about what the Synod (including Patriarch Maximos IV and Archbishop Elias Zoghby) said in these cases?

The Fathers were also smart enough to know that some things are beyond the ability of human reason and human language to describe or define, and thus were willing to let them without explanation. Since God is, by His nature, ineffable, indescribable, ever-existing and ever the same, any human attempt to circumscribe God is bound to fail, and any attempt to define the divine mysteries will be approximate, analogical, incomplete, and to some extent, inaccurate.

Bishop John is a very nice man and a good pastor, but his thinking is not, and has never been in accord with the rest of the Synod. Let's leave it at that.

Though he and Archbishop Michel of Montreal originally declined to sign the Zoghby Initiative, Bishop John did align himself with the entire hierarchy of the Melkite Church in endorsing it eventually. It seems that a similar initiative was launched by (former) Ukrainian Patriarch Lyubomir (Husar).

I agree.

In fact that is why St. Hilary said: ". . . the errors of heretics and blasphemers force us to deal with unlawful matters, to scale perilous heights, to speak unutterable words, to trespass on forbidden ground. Faith ought in silence to fulfill the commandments, worshipping the Father, reverencing with Him the Son, abounding in the Holy Ghost, but we must strain the poor resources of our language to express thoughts too great for words. The error of others compels us to err in daring to embody in human terms truths which ought to be hidden in the silent veneration of the heart."

Interesting. When did he sign on to the Zoghby Initiative?


What happened to this initiative?

I am not familiar with the Ukrainian initiative, unless it refers to the work of the Kyivan Church Studies Group--which was quite different in its aims from the Zoghby Initiative.

I thought Archbishop Husar proposed some kind of "dual communion" idea, which would involve the unification of all the Ukrainian Churches into one Church that would be in communion with Rome and the Orthodox East at the same time.

If he did, good for him. I'm sure it went over like the proverbial fart in church in both Rome and Moscow.

Apotheoun, I would also be very interested to hear your perspective on the material that I've quoted from the Melkite Holy Synod at Vatican II. What do you think of it? Is it not in tension with some of the views that you have expressed concerning papal infallibility, the teachings of post-schism "Latin" councils (e.g., Trent), etc.? (For a partial summary, see this post.)

(I honestly don't ask this question to "bait" you or anyone else into debate. I'm interested in the opinions of other Eastern Catholics whom I respect.)

Vatican II was some fifty years ago, and should be considered the starting point of a discussion between Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches. All we really want, when push comes to shove, is for Rome to treat us in the manner they say they will treat the Orthodox when communion is restored.

Of course, the Orthodox cannot be faulted for viewing those statements as empty promises, when they look at how Rome treats the Eastern Churches already in communion with it. In fact, they might be justified in saying Rome was being either cynical or disingenuous.

Since we have to believe that is not the case, the only thing we, as Eastern Catholics can do, is hold Rome's feet to the fire by demanding that it respect the fullness of our Tradition in all its respects, and not just when it is convenient for Rome to do so.

Yes, I do recall that sometime Patriarch Lubomyr did float the idea of a "dual Communion".

Even more than having Rome treat us like true Autonomous Churches of the Catholic Communion, we ourselves have to think, feel, and esp. ACT as autonomous Churches (in theology, spirituality, liturgy, discipine, and governance & polity)! I think that is the 1st step. So long as we think and act like a "rite" of the Roman Catholic Church, then we will remain half-napiw uniates.

Can someone clarify, are you guys talking about this, or something more recent?

Cardinal Husar denounces Uniatism and urges to establish a one Orthodox-Catholic Church in Ukraine [interfax-religion.com]

Dear Peter:

It is a related idea. At one point the sometime Patriarch floated the idea that the UGCC would re-establish our unity with a united Orthodox Church of Ukraine - but without breaking Communion with the Catholic Churches.
cf. the reference in
http://risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/webconf_archive/25537/
This was back in 2008
And then somehow it got reported that the Ecumenical Patriarch supported this idea (which spread like wildfire {but it was mis-reported})
eg:
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2008/06/22/a-new-communion-for-catholics-and-orthodox.htm

we had lots of discussion here when it happened
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/292707/1
and then
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/294507/1