Eliakim Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 You really should just read up on it first and learn a bit, before deciding what Melkites should do and believe. Go out and meet some Melkites, talk to them. Don't just decide what they should do. We don't need any more Latinization. Selah, None of those links that is official says the IC is optional. And I have met two Melkites: a deacon who follows the CCC and a lay person who sounds like you. That's why I pose the question :) I'm only pulling your chain about the Latinization. I much admire the Eastern customs, but I doubt your parish's head priest would agree with your statements/view. Your bishop certainly would not. ~E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 My Bishop is Roman; his opinion on the matter would not count. Now, if he were Byzantine, it would count. But I am not Byzantine Rite, so. Your refusal to accept what Melkites teach is your problem. If you were to peruse those links, ask questions on those forums, you would find that IC is, in fact, not something Melkites hold to. Especially the byzcath forums. Register and ask questions. This is getting redundant. You have more than enough info and resources to find out for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eliakim Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) No offense, but more lay Melkites saying on anonymous chat forums they don't have to assent to the IC won't cut it. Need the hierarchy since they are not free to just believe what they want. Don't worry I've already reached out to some Melkite clergy and will let everyone know what I find out. Gonna get to the bottom of this- :blues: E PS: update: just found this in meantime: http://www.mliles.com/melkite/theotokosminorconception.shtml Bitcoins please? Edited June 5, 2014 by Eliakim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) From your link: Latin Catholic Church: This privilege of the Theotokos, accepted throughout the centuries, was officially proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in the year 1854. In the West, this Feast is called the Immaculate Conception and is celebrated on 8 Dec. Pius IX's unilateral declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was considered imprudent by Byzantine Catholics. Since the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox do not understand Original Sin in the same way as the Latins, the concept of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense in Eastern theology. The Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma. Edited June 5, 2014 by Selah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 https://melkite.org/tag/conception-of-the-theotokos The “stain of original sin†was described by the 16th century Council of Trent as “the privation of righteousness that each child contracts at its conception.†There is no such understanding in Eastern theology and so to say that Mary was free of it has little meaning in the East. Perhaps this is why many Eastern Catholics, when they hear of “the Immaculate Conception†assume that it refers to the conception of Christ. While it was generally believed that the Theotokos was filled with divine grace from her conception, there was no general understanding on how this happened. The Eastern Church calls Mary achrantos (spotless or immaculate), but has never defined exactly what this meant. Following St. Augustine’s thought on original sin, the Western Church gradually came to accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854: “The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant 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 pre-served free from all stain of original sin.†In other words: The Immaculate Conception, as with Original Sin, is a later, Western invention. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but it has no place in the East. In short: No. Melkites do not accept the Immaculate Conception, because their understanding of sin is different. If you have a problem with that, take it up with their Bishops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I actually kind of find it offensive you won't even listen to lay Melkites, as if they are too stupid to know what they believe. "What do Melkites believe?" "Well, as a Melkite, I" "You don't count, you just don't know any better, where's your priest?" And people wonder why the East and West, even when in union, don't get along with each other <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 And people wonder why the East and West, even when in union, don't get along with each other <_< They never really did. :( The western Church has always been imperialistic towards the East with regards to doctrine and liturgy, and the East has always been inclined to cozy up to secular rulers for political gain. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 They never really did. :( The western Church has always been imperialistic towards the East with regards to doctrine and liturgy, and the East has always been inclined to cozy up to secular rulers for political gain. :P Actually, in this case, it has more to do with Latinizations...that is, forcing Western practices on the Eastern Churches. Maronites have it the worst, though they are starting to get their older practices back. The resentment of many Eastern Catholics towards the West is found in that. Examples of Maronite practices pre-latinization: 1. Maronites, at one time, never used the Filioque 2. Baptism was done by immersion 3. Baptism and Chrismation was given together, by the Priest 4. Bishops did not dispence indulgances 5. Bread in the Eucharist was leavened 6. Women who had just given birth were not to enter the Church for 40 days 7. Archangel Uriel was venerated So really, this entire thread has to do with Latinization, and why the Melkites, and other Eastern Churches, will not conform to Rome. The answer? They don't have to. They aren't under the Pope. Their Bishops are in communion with the Pope, but that is not the same as being under the Pope. Melkites, in particular, only accept 7 Ecumenical Councils. They follow their own Bishop, the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem. Maronites, in turn, follow the Syriac Maronite Patriarch of Antioch. Not everything has to be Roman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Actually, in this case, it has more to do with Latinizations...that is, forcing Western practices on the Eastern Churches. Maronites have it the worst, though they are starting to get their older practices back. The resentment of many Eastern Catholics towards the West is found in that. Examples of Maronite practices pre-latinization: 1. Maronites, at one time, never used the Filioque 2. Baptism was done by immersion 3. Baptism and Chrismation was given together, by the Priest 4. Bishops did not dispence indulgances 5. Bread in the Eucharist was leavened 6. Women who had just given birth were not to enter the Church for 40 days 7. Archangel Uriel was venerated So really, this entire thread has to do with Latinization, and why the Melkites, and other Eastern Churches, will not conform to Rome. The answer? They don't have to. They aren't under the Pope. Their Bishops are in communion with the Pope, but that is not the same as being under the Pope. Melkites, in particular, only accept 7 Ecumenical Councils. They follow their own Bishop, the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem. Maronites, in turn, follow the Syriac Maronite Patriarch of Antioch. Not everything has to be Roman. Right, that falls under imperialism. Nothing new, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Right, that falls under imperialism. Nothing new, unfortunately. Yeah, it pretty much stinks. But the latest Popes, then and now, seem to speak in favor of the East and their traditions, so there is always a glimmer of hope :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 You should read Banished Heart by Geoffrey Hull. He gives a really amazing assessment of the East West split and how solutions may be attained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Added to my amazon wishlist :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/eastern_catholics_are_they_orthodox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 https://www.facebook.com/notes/steven-todd-kaster/the-differences-between-the-christian-east-and-the-christian-west/312949998765336 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 From that podcast: "In our church, we don't have it (the immaculate conception); we don't know when or how she was purified; so we don't make mysteries dogmatic" Our feast of the Immaculate Conception is their Conception of the Theotokos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now