The Creed

[Apotheoun]

Bishop John Elya's views are in the minority. He was one of the two bishops out of 26 who did not vote for the so-called "Zoghby Initiative." As a retired bishop of the diaspora (i.e., a bishop outside of the so-called "traditional territory" of the Melkite Church) he was appointed a bishop by the Pope and not by the Holy Synod and so his views are not representative of the Patriarch or of the Holy Synod itself. The Melkite Patriarch (i.e., the current head of the Melkite Catholic Church) has on several occasions, said that the Western Church's councils are not ecumenical, and as a Melkite I am bound to accept his position over that of a retired bishop appointed to an eparchy in a manner that is contrary to the tradition of the Melkite Church. It follows that until Rome respects the traditions of the various Eastern Catholic self-governing Churches there will be no progress with the Orthodox in ecumenical dialogue. The days of Roman Church imperialism are at an end as far I and my Eastern Catholic friends are concerned.

One other note, retired Bishop Elya's comments are rather ironic, because the catechetical materials presented on the vary same website assert quite clearly that there have been only seven ecumenical councils.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

As a catechist I have been required to test students on the following questions (taken from the Melkite Catholic website) and grade there answers (A.) according to the answer given in the materials approved by the Holy Synod:

[quote]40. Was the Vatican Council an ecumenical council? Why? Why Not?
A. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox

[url="http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2007C.htm"][u]Challenge 2007c[/u][/url][/quote]

[quote]22. What are the Ecumenical Councils?
A. The seven great meetings called that gave expression to the basic faith of the Church

[url="http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2006C.htm"][u]Challenge 2006c[/u][/url][/quote]

[quote]9. How many ecumenical councils were held?
A. Seven Ecumenical Councils.

[url="http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2006D.htm"][u]Challenge 2006d[/u][/url][/quote]

[quote]8. How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
A. Seven Ecumenical Councils

9. Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
A. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox

[url="http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm"][u]Challenge 2005b[/u][/url][/quote]

[quote]6. What are the seven great meetings called that gave expression to the basic faith of the Church, and where was the first one held?
A. Ecumenical councils, Nicaea.

[url="http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2004.htm"][u]Challenge 2004a[/u][/url][/quote]

[Apotheoun]

The post below is from another recent thread on issues related to East / West relations:



[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1888140' date='Jun 10 2009, 08:07 PM'][quote name='Resurrexi' post='1888134' date='Jun 10 2009, 08:04 PM']
Maybe Latin Catholics should throw out the first seven Ecumenical Councils because most of the bishops present were from the East. [/quote]


Talk to your Church's patriarch about that, for he is the one who accepts those seven councils as ecumenical; while my Church's patriarch — on the issue of the Latin Church's particular synods — has said that:

"We must explain and clarify the topics that are obstacles to our full communion [with the Orthodox]: Primacy of the Pope of Rome, Western Councils [b]which cannot be recognized as Ecumenical Councils[/b] (as it has been admitted by highly qualified Western theologians since Pope Paul VI) . . ."
[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

If Roman Catholics insist that Florence (and Lyon II and Trent) are truly ecumenical, it follows that the Scholastic formulations advocated at those particular synods of the Roman Church move from simply being erroneous to being truly heretical. Luckily no one at Phatmass has the authority to say that those councils are ecumenical, and so far the Pope has not seen fit to enforce such a viewpoint upon my Patriarch or upon the Melkite Holy Synod, should he decide to do that, it would throw the Melkite Church, and many other Eastern Catholic Churches into turmoil, and they have already lost significant numbers of faithful to the Orthodox, and I would hate to see that exodus increase.

[Apotheoun]

[i]As far as the authority of the petrine ministry is concerned, I must remind everyone of what the Melkite Patriarch said while visiting Rome in 2001:[/i]


[size=3][size=4][b]H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria[/b][/size]

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!

[00119-02.03] [in096] [Original text: French][/size]

[Apotheoun]

It is important to remember that Rome is not the only petrine see, for as Pope St. Gregory the Great said:

“Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. [i][b]Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside[/b][/i], whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'” [[i]Registrum Epistolarum[/i], Book VII, 40]

[Apotheoun]

Some of my reasons for rejecting the idea that the local Western Church councils are ecumenical, which Resurrexi has still not responded to with any kind of coherent argument to support his claims, are given at the post linked below:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=95012&view=findpost&p=1891102"][u]Melkites[/u][/url]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1895090' date='Jun 18 2009, 05:59 AM']If Roman Catholics insist that Florence (and Lyon II and Trent) are truly ecumenical, it follows that the Scholastic formulations advocated at those particular synods of the Roman Church move from simply being erroneous to being truly heretical. Luckily no one at Phatmass has the authority to say that those councils are ecumenical, and so far the Pope has not seen fit to enforce such a viewpoint upon my Patriarch or upon the Melkite Holy Synod, should he decide to do that, it would throw the Melkite Church, and many other Eastern Catholic Churches into turmoil, and they have already lost significant numbers of faithful to the Orthodox, and I would hate to see that exodus increase.[/quote]

Even if the Council of Florence were not ecumenical (It certainly is: the Supreme Pontiffs have constantly reiterated this truth.), its dogmatic definition that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son would be considered an example of papal infallibility, since [i]Laetentur Caeli [/i](the decree for the Greeks) was a papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1895094' date='Jun 18 2009, 06:29 AM']Some of my reasons for rejecting the idea that the local Western Church councils are ecumenical, which Resurrexi has still not responded to with any kind of coherent argument to support his claims, are given at the post linked below:[/quote]

The fact that the Popes have constantly affirmed that Florence, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, etc. are ecumenical councils a good reason to accept them as ecumenical.

"And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."

Edited June 18, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1895098' date='Jun 18 2009, 04:42 AM']The fact that the Popes have constantly affirmed that Florence, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, etc. are ecumenical councils a good reason to accept them as ecumenical.

"And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."[/quote]
As I have said before, you and I have very different ideas about the nature and authority of the papacy.

I reject Trent's view that the original sin involves the transmission of guilt from parent to child, and I also reject Trent's view that the grace of "justification" is not God's very own justice, but is some kind of "created" justice, etc.

Nothing created can divinize a man, and to say that this is even possible is to embrace both the Arian and Pneumatomachian positions on the Trinity and salvation. There is no such thing as "created" grace.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1895097' date='Jun 18 2009, 04:40 AM']Even if the Council of Florence were not ecumenical (It certainly is: the Supreme Pontiffs have constantly reiterated this truth.), its dogmatic definition that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son would be considered an example of papal infallibility, since [i]Laetentur Caeli [/i](the decree for the Greeks) was a papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV.[/quote]
Florence, contrary to be scripture and patristic tradition, confuses the [i]ekporeusis[/i] of the Spirit from the Father, with the [i]proienai[/i] of the Spirit's energies from the Father through the Son. That said, I can never accept its decrees as binding in faith.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

As far as [i]theosis[/i] is concerned, I agree with St. Gregory Palamas who said:

"According to the divine Maximos, the Logos of well-being, by grace is present unto the worthy, bearing God, Who is by nature above all beginning and end, Who makes those who by nature have a beginning and an end become by grace without beginning and without end, because the Great Paul also, no longer living the life in time, but the divine and eternal life of the indwelling Logos, became by grace without beginning and without end; and Melchisedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life, not because of his created nature, according to which he began and ceased to exist, but because of the divine and uncreated and eternal grace which is above all nature and time, being from the eternal God. Paul, therefore, was created only as long as he lived the life created from non-being by the command of God. But when he no longer lived this life, but that which is present by the indwelling of God, he became uncreated by grace, as did also Melchisedek and everyone who comes to possess the Logos of God, alone living and acting within himself." [St. Gregory Palamas, "Third Letter to Akindynos"]

[Resurrexi]

Palamas, whom I do not regard as a Saint, did not die in external communion with the Holy Roman Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1895117' date='Jun 18 2009, 05:54 AM']Palamas, whom I do not regard as a Saint, did not die in external communion with the Holy Roman Church.[/quote]
I will offer prayers for your continued enlightenment and spiritual growth in front of my icon of St. Gregory Palamas in the morning.

[Resurrexi]

I will ask the intercession of Pope St. Pius V that you accept the infallible dogmas defined by the Council of Trent, as well as the dogmas of the primacy and infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff, the office which he held during his earthly life.

[Nihil Obstat]

Apotheoun, according to Eastern Catholicism, could a council be considered ecumenical if it included Eastern Catholic but not Eastern Orthodox bishops?

Edited June 18, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Patrick]

I find it interesting that Apotheoun's idea of spiritual health is "continued enlightenment and spiritual growth", whereas Resurrexi's is a mental acceptance of various tenets of belief and of authorities. In this way, Resurrexi is closer to being a Protestant than Orthodox. (And Catholics say that the only thing standing in the way of reunion with Orthodox is schism!)

Edited June 18, 2009 by Patrick

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1895311' date='Jun 18 2009, 02:25 PM']I find it interesting that Apotheoun's idea of spiritual health is "continued enlightenment and spiritual growth", whereas Resurrexi's is a mental acceptance of various tenets of belief and of authorities. In this way, Resurrexi is closer to being a Protestant than Orthodox. (And Catholics say that the only thing standing in the way of reunion with Orthodox is schism!)[/quote]

Taking Apo and Rex out of the picture. The reverse is actually true. Protestantism often rejects tenets and beliefs of "authorities" where as they profess continued enlightenment and spiritual of self growth.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1895362' date='Jun 18 2009, 01:53 PM']Taking Apo and Rex out of the picture. The reverse is actually true. Protestantism often rejects tenets and beliefs of "authorities" where as they profess continued enlightenment and spiritual of self growth.[/quote]
Of course, anything can be perverted. That said, simply quoting an historical document is not an argument, nor does is compel one to blindly accept what is said in it at face value.

[Patrick]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1895362' date='Jun 18 2009, 01:53 PM']Taking Apo and Rex out of the picture. The reverse is actually true. Protestantism often rejects tenets and beliefs of "authorities" where as they profess continued enlightenment and spiritual of self growth.[/quote]

I was thinking more of the method than of the content. Namely the keytexting characteristic of so many Protestants, and the pre-eminence of the role of a statement of faith and right beliefs in one's salvation. Contrast this with the deification process within Orthodoxy.