www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Melkites at Vatican I

In my recent post I am not exhibiting "isogesis" whatever that is, but eisigesis.

These posts do not answer the most important question. Do the Melkites believe in papal infallibility? If not how can they be in Communion with Rome if you do not accept one of the main beliefs of modern Roman Catholicism and call yourselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome? If they do how can the Melkites call themselves Orthodox? I am not trying to be combative or confrontational. I just want to know.

Fr. John W. Morris

According to Eusebius' account, the matter involved the Churches of Asia, not just local parish churches in Rome. There was actually an exchange of letters between Pope St. Victor and Polycrates, who presided over an Asian Council (convened at the behest of Pope Victor) to discuss the Easter question.

I RESPOND: The fact is that Pope Victor lacked the authority to resolve the controversy. It took the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicea I in 325 to resolve the Easter Controversy. When Pope Victor considered excommunicating the Church in Asia Minor, St. Irenaeus of Lyons warned him that he did not have that authority.

I'm sorry. But I find it absolutely ridiculous that naysayers of the papacy constantly appeal to figures who were doctrinally wrong. Face it, St. Cyprian was wrong, as he was wrong about not accepting Novatian baptism.

I RESPOND: It is true that the Church did not adopt the views of St. Cyprian as can be seen in Canon 95 of the Council of Trullo which allowed most members of heretical groups to join the Church through Profession of Faith or Chrismation. However, St. Cyprian's views of the role of the Papacy represented the prevailing view in the Church in the East at that time when the Bishop of Rome had primacy of honor as “first among equals” as senior Bishop of the Church, but no actual jursdiction outside of his own Patriarchate and like all other Bishops was subject to the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

Ironically, St. Cyprian had no problem appealing to the bishop of Rome to discipline errant bishops in Gaul and Spain. So here we have a case of someone who admitted the primatial authority of Rome when he agreed with him, and falling back on the "all are equal" gambit when he disagreed (and was wrong nevertheless!). I've also met anti-papal apologists who actually appeal to the Arians to demonstrate their point! (Perhaps that argument filtered into anti-papal polemics from the Protestants?).

I RESPOND: It was natural that St. Cyprian would appeal to the Pope to discipline the Bishops of Gaul and Spain, because he had direct authority over them as the Patriarch of the West. Canon VI of the 1st Council of Nicaea recognized the historic jurisdiction of the Bishop or Rome over the Bishops of those areas. The Council of Chalcedon sent the Tome of Leo to a committee headed by St. Anatolius the Patriarch of Constantinople to study and compare it to the 12 Antahemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria to decide if it was orthodox. Once the committee approved the Tome of Pope St. Leo it was presented to the council for ratification which of course it received. The point is that it was not accepted by the Ecumenical Council without study simply because it was written by the Pope. This shows that in the ancient Church an Ecumenical Council had authority over the Pope.

Finally, I'd like to comment on your rather jaundiced account of the events of Chalcedon:
It was not the text of the letter for which Pope St. Leo demanded agreement, but the Faith contained in them.


Hardly! As the clergy from Constantinople exclaimed during the Session: "It is a few who cry out, not the Council which speaks."

Not at all. No such insistence occurred. The Letter of Pope St. Cyril to John of Antioch was read by acclamation, and the Tome of Pope St. Leo was read afterwards by acclamation, with no other purpose but to let the bishops drink from the honey of Truth that flowed from those documents.

Absolutely no change was made to the Faith that was proposed by Pope St. Leo - period - which is what he desired. No intend to minimize the importance of Pope St. Leo's letter occurred, contrary to your suggestion. In fact, the Definition of Chalcedon contains these words:
"And, for the confirmation of the orthodox doctrines, it has rightly added to these the letter of the president of the great and old Rome, the most blessed and holy Archbishop Leo."

I RESPOND: The council did not change the text of the Tome of Pope St. Leo. It used it when it prepared its final declaration.

I suspect you are going by anti-Catholic accounts of the matter. Please do read the Council documents themselves (I think an English version exists on CCEL).

Blessings,
Marduk

I RESPOND: The complete records of all 7 Ecumenical Councils can be found at http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
You can download the vol. XIV of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers

Fr. John W. Morris

That is a good historical explanation of the rise of the Papacy. Before the schism, the Pope played the same role in the then united Church as the Ecumenical Patriarch plays in the Eastern Orthodox Church today. That is the Bishop of Rome was recognized as first in honor as senior Bishop of the Church, but lacked actual authority outside of his own Patriarchate and was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council like all other Bishops. There are several examples that show that the Ecumenical Councils assumed authority over the Pope. The 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325, restricted the authority of the Bishop of Rome to the West and affirmed the independence of Alexandria and Antioch. Before it approved the Tome of Pope St. Leo, the Council of Chalcedon, the 4th Ecumenical Council in 451 sent the document to a committee which studied to determine its orthodoxy before it was submitted to the council for approval. Significantly, Another Canon 28 of Chalcedon gave the Patriarch of Constantinople equal rank with the Pope. Pope Vigilius was threatened with excommunication unless he accepted the decisions of the 5th Ecumenical Council, II Constantinople in 553. Finally, Pope Honorius I was declared an heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council, III Constantinople in 680 for his role in the Monothelite heresy. Although the Pope had great influence and respect, all decisions effecting the whole Church, doctrinal and disciplinary, were made by Ecumenical Councils not the Pope.

Fr. John W. Morris

I do not think that anyone except for a few fanatics want to humiliate Rome. However, we do not want to be humiliated by Rome either. Eastern Orthodox would have no problem recognizing Rome as holding a primacy of honor like that held today by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Eastern Orthodox Church
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I do not think that it is our concern how the Western Church organizes its own affairs as long as the West does not interfere in how we organize our own affairs.
Although each autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church administers its own internal affairs, all are accountable to each other in matters of doctrine and pan-Orthodox matters. Although we reserve the title "Ecumenical Council" to the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the ancient undivided Church, through the centuries pan-Orthodox councils representing the autocphalous Churches have played the same role as an Ecumenical Council. Sometimes, the Ecumenical Patriarch calls together the other Primates or their representatives to make decisions effecting the entire Eastern Orthodox Church, or to resolve disputes involving an autocephalous Church. For example a few years ago the Holy Synod of Jerusalem removed their Patriarch for corruption. He appealed to Constantinople which called a meeting of the Primates of the autocephalous Churches which affirmed the decision of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem to remove their Patriarch.

Fr. John W. Morris

The treatment of the doctrine of the Assumption of Our Lady shows one difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. We did not need a declaration of the doctrine that after her death the Blessed Virgin was assumed body and soul into Heaven, because it is already clearly taught by the texts used for the celebration of the Feast of the Falling Asleep of Mary on August 15. In the Eastern Orthodox Church we proclaim our doctrine through our liturgical texts.

Fr. John W. Morris

The conciliar method worked rather well during the period before the schism. It would be even easier today to organize an Ecumenical Council because of modern transportation than it was during the age of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils. Preparatory committees could send copies of proposed actions to the autocephalous Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy and the Bishop's Conferences of Catholicism for study and discussion before the meeting of the council A steering committee could receive the responses to the proposed decrees and find a way to combine them into a common statement to be approved formally at the council.

Fr. John Morris

The problem with your argument is that the conciliar movement did not advocate new teaching, but return to the practices of the ancient undivided Church in which an Ecumenical Council did have authority over the Pope. In the pre-schism Church, the highest authority in the Church belonged to an Ecumenical Council. The ancient Popes had no right to veto the decisions of an Ecumenical Council. They could challenge them and call for the assembling of another council as Pope St. Leo I challenged the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449 and successfully convinced the Church to hold another Council at Chalcedon which over turned the decisions of the Robber Council and disciplined Dioscorus.

Fr. John W. Morris

"I don't see how a Council held over 10 years after the Sixth Council can be considered part of the Sixth Council. The Quinisext was always regarded as a local Council of the East, so I don't see how this is an example of Rome rejecting a canon of an Ecumenical Council."

The Council in Trullo of 692, Quinisxt, was ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Council, the II Council of Nicaea in 787. The official decrees of the Ecumenical Councils always began with a list of the councils that it recognized as Ecumenical. It is, true however, that the West did not follow all of the canons of Trullo. However, the East did not break Communion with Rome over the issue.

Fr. John W. Morris

It would be necessary to reach agreement on the doctrinal matters covered by the Western councils held after the schism before Communion could be resumed. Trent was very specific on matters of doctrine, for example.

Fr. John W. Morris

Q: Do the Melkites believe in papal infallibility?

A: Yes, as defined and accepted across the whole Church (East and West) in the first millennium.

In February 1995, Melkite Bishop Zoghby declared a two-point Profession of Faith:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

Almost all of the Melkite bishops signed on to this agreement.

This is not really controversial within Catholicism. Even as recent as Pope Benedict XVI you can see where he several times indicated that at the time of reunion between East and West the West can ask nothing more of the East then what existed during the first millennium.

I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative, but that does not really answer my question because Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics do not agree on what authority the Pope had before 1054. My experience is that some Roman Catholics read Vatican I back into church history. Therefore, they claim that the Pope had all the authority during the first 1,000 years of church history that he has today in the Catholic Church. However, as an Eastern Orthodox historian, I do not agree. I believe that the Bishop of Rome had essentially the same position then that the Ecumenical Patriarch has today in the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is the Bishop of Rome held a primacy of honor as first among equals, but only had jurisdiction within his own Patriarchate and like all other Bishops was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Bless Father Archpriest,

Certainly, it is as you say.

However, as a kind of international arbiter, the Pope could be called upon by Churches and theologians to settle disputes when the local/regional Church came to an impasse. That was, at least, the role of the Bishop of Rome that everyone seemed to be comfortable with prior to the schism between East and West that occurred some time between 1054 and 1204.

Only the most ultramontanist of RC's would claim the pope of Rome had the same kind of authority in the first thousand years that he claimed for himself in the second thousand years.

However, if there are RC's who hold to that view, certainly the tremendous praises sung about the pope of Rome at the Sixth Ecumenical Council by Eastern hierarchs would have given them ample inspiration for just such a view.

Again, consistency in terms of historical Orthodox pronouncements on this matter isn't stellar.

Reverencing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Dr Alexander I. Roman

It is true that the prestige and position of the Pope as the senior Bishop of the Church made his opinion very important. Therefore, anyone involved in a dispute sought his support. However, before 1054 the Pope did not have the final authority to resolve any doctrinal dispute, the final authority on every major dispute was an Ecumenical Council not the Pope. For example although Pope St. Leo I rightfully objected to the exoneration of the heretic Eucyches at the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449, he lacked the authority to overrule the council. Instead, the Church held the Council of Chalcedon in 451 which overruled the Robber Council, and excommunicated Dioscorus who presided over the council of 449. The Council of Chalcedon sent the Tome of St. Leo to a committee which after studying it and comparing it to the 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius declared it orthodox. The council then accepted the Tome of St. Leo, and used it when it wrote its final declaration condemning Monophysitism.
You should also remember that the 6th Ecumenical Council also condemned a Pope, Honorius I, for heresy.

With blessings.

Fr. John W. Morris

Stuart -- What do you make of the Quartodeciman Controversy? In that case, it sure seemed that Pope Victor thought he had the power to excommunicate all of Asia. How does that event fit into your auctoritas/podestas distinction?[/quote]

The Quartodeciman controversy seems to have involved Eastern congregations within the city of Rome, not the Eastern Churches themselves. The issue of the fermentum, that features prominently in the polemics of Pope Victor could not have been sent from Rome to Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria, etc.--but it could have been sent around to the churches in Rome itself. So it's not clear that Victor was trying to compel the Eastern Churches to comply with Roman usage, only to have uniformity within his diocese.[/quote]
According to Eusebius' account, the matter involved the Churches of Asia, not just local parish churches in Rome. There was actually an exchange of letters between Pope St. Victor and Polycrates, who presided over an Asian Council (convened at the behest of Pope Victor) to discuss the Easter question.

I RESPOND: The fact is that Pope Victor lacked the authority to resolve the controversy. It took the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicea I in 325 to resolve the Easter Controversy. When Pope Victor considered excommunicating the Church in Asia Minor, St. Irenaeus of Lyons warned him that he did not have that authority.

I'm sorry. But I find it absolutely ridiculous that naysayers of the papacy constantly appeal to figures who were doctrinally wrong. Face it, St. Cyprian was wrong, as he was wrong about not accepting Novatian baptism.

I RESPOND: It is true that the Church did not adopt the views of St. Cyprian as can be seen in Canon 95 of the Council of Trullo which allowed most members of heretical groups to join the Church through Profession of Faith or Chrismation. However, St. Cyprian's views of the role of the Papacy represented the prevailing view in the Church in the East at that time when the Bishop of Rome had primacy of honor as “first among equals” as senior Bishop of the Church, but no actual jurisdiction outside of his own Patriarchate and like all other Bishops was subject to the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

Ironically, St. Cyprian had no problem appealing to the bishop of Rome to discipline errant bishops in Gaul and Spain. So here we have a case of someone who admitted the primatial authority of Rome when he agreed with him, and falling back on the "all are equal" gambit when he disagreed (and was wrong nevertheless!). I've also met anti-papal apologists who actually appeal to the Arians to demonstrate their point! (Perhaps that argument filtered into anti-papal polemics from the Protestants?).

I RESPOND: It was natural that St. Cyprian would appeal to the Pope to discipline the Bishops of Gaul and Spain, because he had direct authority over them as the Patriarch of the West. Canon VI of the 1st Council of Nicaea recognized the historic jurisdiction of the Bishop or Rome over the Bishops of those areas. The Council of Chalcedon sent the Tome of Leo to a committee headed by St. Anatolius the Patriarch of Constantinople to study and compare it to the 12 Antahemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria to decide if it was orthodox. Once the committee approved the Tome of Pope St. Leo it was presented to the council for ratification which of course it received. The point is that it was not accepted by the Ecumenical Council without study simply because it was written by the Pope. This shows that in the ancient Church an Ecumenical Council had authority over the Pope.

Finally, I'd like to comment on your rather jaundiced account of the events of Chalcedon:
It was not the text of the letter for which Pope St. Leo demanded agreement, but the Faith contained in them.


Hardly! As the clergy from Constantinople exclaimed during the Session: "It is a few who cry out, not the Council which speaks."

Not at all. No such insistence occurred. The Letter of Pope St. Cyril to John of Antioch was read by acclamation, and the Tome of Pope St. Leo was read afterwards by acclamation, with no other purpose but to let the bishops drink from the honey of Truth that flowed from those documents.

I RESPOND: The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon sent the Tome of Pope St. Leo to a committee headed by St. Anatolius the Patriarch of Constantinople. The committee compared it with the 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius and pronounced St. Leo's Tome orthodox. Then after the committee reported back to the council, the Council of Chalcedon accepted it and used it when it wrote its final condemnation of Monophysitism.

Absolutely no change was made to the Faith that was proposed by Pope St. Leo - period - which is what he desired. No intend to minimize the importance of Pope St. Leo's letter occurred, contrary to your suggestion. In fact, the Definition of Chalcedon contains these words:
"And, for the confirmation of the orthodox doctrines, it has rightly added to these the letter of the president of the great and old Rome, the most blessed and holy Archbishop Leo."

I RESPOND: The council did not change the text of the Tome of Pope St. Leo. It used it when it prepared its final declaration.

I suspect you are going by anti-Catholic accounts of the matter. Please do read the Council documents themselves (I think an English version exists on CCEL).

I RESPOND: I have read the records of the Council of Chalcedon and studied the council. The council did accept the Tome of Pope St. Leo, but only after it was studied and declared orthodox by a committee appointed to analyze it. This is actually very important because the committee found the Tome of Pope St. Leo in conformity with the 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius. This shows that the accusation of the non-Chalcedonians that Chalcedon and the Tome of St. Leo was Nestorian is false.

Blessings,
Marduk

I RESPOND: The complete records of all 7 Ecumenical Councils can be found at http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
You can download the vol. XIV of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers

Fr. John W. Morris