Melkites

[Patrick]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1890751' date='Jun 14 2009, 07:38 PM']SacredMusicMan, to whom I addressed my post quoting Catholic authorities earlier, as far as I am aware, is Catholic, and not Eastern Orthodox. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

You are in the process of switching rites to the Melkite Catholic Church, not the Melkite Orthodox Church, so you ought to hold the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs as well.[/quote]
[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1890747' date='Jun 14 2009, 07:37 PM']I am a member of the Melkite Catholic Church, which is in communion with Rome. That said, the following profession of faith was issued by the Melkite Patriarch and the Melkite Holy Synod back in the mid-1990s, and it remains in force as the official position of the Melkite Catholic Church to this day:

[b](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. [/b][/quote]

I'm moving this topic from the Proselytism of Eastern Orthodox thread, because it doesn't really fit there, and besides I had a few questions.

1) Is there such a thing as "Melkite Orthodox"? I know Melkites aren't in communion with Orthodox. This is a new term to me.

2) Apotheoun, you believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. Could you expound on that a little? Melkites in general believe everything with Eastern Orthodoxy teaches? Is this in addition to other specifically Melkite teachings or do Melkites also claim not to add anything to Eastern Orthodox teaching?

3) How does communion with Rome fit in with #2? Would not this be indicative of some deeper down difference in belief, particularly with regard to ecclesiology? Or, put another way, why are Melkites in communion with Rome and not with Orthodox if indeed you share our beliefs?

I must admit I don't know much about Melkites and look forward to your answers.

Patrick

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1890790' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:00 PM']I'm moving this topic from the Proselytism of Eastern Orthodox thread, because it doesn't really fit there, and besides I had a few questions.

1) Is there such a thing as "Melkite Orthodox"? I know Melkites aren't in communion with Orthodox. This is a new term to me.[/quote]
I think that you are Melkite Orthodox, because the Melkite Catholic Church broke off from the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate in 1726.

[quote name='Patrick' post='1890790' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:00 PM']2) Apotheoun, you believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. Could you expound on that a little? Melkites in general believe everything with Eastern Orthodoxy teaches? Is this in addition to other specifically Melkite teachings or do Melkites also claim not to add anything to Eastern Orthodox teaching?[/quote]
That would require writing a dissertation, but perhaps it can be narrowed down to particular topics, for example: the importance of the essence / energy distinction; the nature of salvation as [i]theosis[/i], which is not reducible to a concept of legal justification; the effects of the original sin; the primacy of the bishop of Rome; the Eastern rejection of the Scholastic concept of "created" grace; etc.

[quote name='Patrick' post='1890790' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:00 PM']3) How does communion with Rome fit in with #2? Would not this be indicative of some deeper down difference in belief, particularly with regard to ecclesiology? Or, put another way, why are Melkites in communion with Rome and not with Orthodox if indeed you share our beliefs?

I must admit I don't know much about Melkites and look forward to your answers.

Patrick[/quote]
Communion is about reciprocity and not about the power of one bishop (or Church) over another bishop (or Church). Ultimately, as I see it, a patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church through the celebration of the liturgy and the profession of the Orthodox faith, is incompatible with the late medieval Roman universalist ecclesiology promoted by the Scholastics, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical subservience to the bishop of Rome.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[i]I apologize for posting this response yet again (this is the third time), but it fits in this new thread, and should help to explain my position on Eastern ecclesiology:[/i]


Sadly, this is an issue that we will not agree upon, because we understand the nature and role of the bishop of Rome differently. The pope has no authority [i]over[/i] the other [i]sui juris[/i] Churches, because any concept of supreme authority of one bishop [i]over[/i] another bishop, or of one Church [i]over[/i] another Church, destroys the reality of communion, which is not about power [i]over[/i] others, but about reciprocity and sharing in the common divine life of the body of Christ. In fact, in an ecclesiology of communion, or what Fr. Schmemann calls, a "eucharistic" ecclesiology, it is not possible for one Church (or one bishop) to have power [i]over[/i] another Church (or bishop), because each and every particular Church is the full realization of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church. In other words, power in the Church cannot be thought of as "power [i]over[/i] others," but must be understood as "service" to others. Thus, it must not be thought of in legal or jurisdictional terms, but in terms of service and love in support of communion. As Fr. Schmemann explains, "The essential corollary of this eucharistic ecclesiology is that it excludes the idea of a supreme power, understood as power [i]over[/i] the local Church and her bishop," because as he goes on to say, "A supreme power would mean power [i]over[/i] the Church, [i]over[/i] the Body of Christ, [i]over[/i] Christ Himself," and this is simply contrary to the Orthodox faith of the Fathers ["The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church," pages 38-39]. Bearing in mind what I have already said, it is clear that the "sacred power" of popes and patriarchs -- which is founded upon the unity of the sacrament of orders -- is one of service, and so it must not be thought of in monarchical, legalistic, or jurisdictional terms. Moreover, this "sacred power" is held equally by all who possess the grace of sacramental ordination to the episcopate. Ultimately, the eucharistic ecclesiology of the first millennium is opposed to the universalist ecclesiology of the Latin Church of the middle ages, which only developed due to the Scholastic isolation of the Latin Church from the great patristic tradition of the earliest centuries of the Christian era that is the common patrimony of both East and West.

Finally, from an Eastern Christian perspective, following the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the pope has authority within his own patriarchal Church, but even within the Roman Church the pope himself is subject to Tradition, and so he cannot simply alter the liturgy or break with immemorial custom, and there will continue to be liturgical upheavals within the Western Church until this truth is unequivocally reaffirmed.

[Apotheoun]

The reciprocity that should exist between the Churches in communion with each other is clearly expressed in the ancient Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles, which reads as follows:

"The bishops of every country ought to know who is the first ([i]protos[/i]) among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him [i.e., the [i]protos[/i]] not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit."

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Patrick]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1890880' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:47 PM']I think that you are Melkite Orthodox, because the Melkite Catholic Church broke off from the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate in 1726.[/quote]

AH! That explains some things. Wow. This is some of my own history I didn't know anything about.

So, would the statement, "Melkites (Catholics) are essentially an Antiochian Orthodox faction that is in communion with Rome instead of the Antiochian Orthodox (and the rest of the Orthodox that they in turn are in communion with)" seem correct to you?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1890979' date='Jun 14 2009, 09:22 PM']AH! That explains some things. Wow. This is some of my own history I didn't know anything about.

So, would the statement, "Melkites (Catholics) are essentially an Antiochian Orthodox faction that is in communion with Rome instead of the Antiochian Orthodox (and the rest of the Orthodox that they in turn are in communion with)" seem correct to you?[/quote]
Yeah, that is a pretty fair assessment of the situation.

That is why the Melkite Catholic Church issued its profession of faith in the mid-1990s to the Antiochian Orthodox patriarchate, which gave a very kind response to the initiative, even though it did not accept it at the time, saying that there were still many theological questions that needed to be resolved.

[Apotheoun]

By the way, the term "Melkite" simply means "the King's men" and was originally used to signify those who accepted the teaching of Chalcedon, who -- on that issue -- were the King's men.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1890979' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:22 PM']So, would the statement, "Melkites (Catholics) are essentially an Antiochian Orthodox faction that is in communion with Rome instead of the Antiochian Orthodox (and the rest of the Orthodox that they in turn are in communion with)" seem correct to you?[/quote]

That woudl not be a correct understanding of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The Eastern Catholic Churches agree with the Holy Roman Church in regards to dogmas and other doctrines, but they have a liturgy that is like that of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1891010' date='Jun 14 2009, 09:38 PM']That would not be a correct understanding of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The Eastern Catholic Churches agree with the Holy Roman Church in regards to dogmas and other doctrines, but they have a liturgy that is like that of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.[/quote]
You have a right to your opinion on the matter, but I do not agree with you.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1891010' date='Jun 14 2009, 09:38 PM']That woudl not be a correct understanding of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The Eastern Catholic Churches agree with the Holy Roman Church in regards to dogmas and other doctrines, but they have a liturgy that is like that of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.[/quote]

Allow me to ask this value-neutral question: Are there different types of Eastern Catholics? More specifically, are there Eastern Catholics who are essentially just Eastern Rite Roman Catholics, and are there also Eastern Catholics who were something else and came into communion with Rome (such as Melkites)? I'm honestly asking, because I don't know the answer.

Thanks,
Patrick

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891022' date='Jun 14 2009, 09:45 PM']Allow me to ask this value-neutral question: Are there different types of Eastern Catholics? More specifically, are there Eastern Catholics who are essentially just Eastern Rite Roman Catholics, and are there also Eastern Catholics who were something else and came into communion with Rome (such as Melkites)? I'm honestly asking, because I don't know the answer.

Thanks,
Patrick[/quote]
Yes, there are Eastern Catholics, within various Eastern Catholic [i]sui juris[/i] Churches, who are very Latinized, and some who are less so, and some like myself, who strive to be completely de-Latinized. The process of de-Latinization, which was undertaken with vigor after the close of the Roman Church's local council of the Vatican in the 1960s, has brought about the restoration of many Eastern traditions within the Byzantine (and other) Eastern Catholic Churches (e.g., the restoration of the iconostasis, the return to giving all the mysteries of initiation to infants, the return to commemorating saints peculiar to the Eastern tradition, like St. Gregory Palamas, etc.), but it has also met with resistance in some quarters. Sadly, some Eastern Catholics equate being Catholic with being Latin, and many of them are unhappy about the return to Eastern practices. It is also a lamentable reality that many Eastern Catholics who favor de-Latinization leave for Orthodoxy because they think that the process is going to slowly. I have many friends who have become Orthodox for that very reason. Such is life at the present time in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Patrick]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1890880' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:47 PM']That would require writing a dissertation, but perhaps it can be narrowed down to particular topics, for example: the importance of the essence / energy distinction; the nature of salvation as [i]theosis[/i], which is not reducible to a concept of legal justification; the effects of the original sin; the primacy of the bishop of Rome; the Eastern rejection of the Scholastic concept of "created" grace; etc.[/quote]

Dissertation not needed. Now that I have the pointer, I can research it a bit myself and come back with more-informed questions.

To clarify, your examples above are intended as ones of agreement between (to use unambiguous terminology) Melkite Catholics and Antiochian Orthodox, yes? Not ones of difference?

[Patrick]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1890880' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:47 PM']Communion is about reciprocity and not about the power of one bishop (or Church) over another bishop (or Church). Ultimately, as I see it, a patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church through the celebration of the liturgy and the profession of the Orthodox faith, is incompatible with the late medieval Roman universalist ecclesiology promoted by the Scholastics, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical subservience to the bishop of Rome.[/quote]

Alright, questions of [i]Melkite[/i] notions of in-communion aside, I'm still a bit confused on the Latin side. You had mentioned earlier the Melkites are [i]something[/i] Roma, but not [i]sub[/i] Roma, but I can't find that now. What was that again?

And how is it that Roma is alright with anyone being [i]something[/i] Roma, and not [i]sub[/i] Roma? Perhaps this is answered in the previous discussion, and I can read up on it when you post a reference.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891062' date='Jun 14 2009, 10:23 PM']To clarify, your examples above are intended as ones of agreement between (to use unambiguous terminology) Melkite Catholics and Antiochian Orthodox, yes?[/quote]
Correct, they are areas of agreement between Melkites (and other Eastern Catholics) and Eastern Orthodox Christians in general.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891066' date='Jun 14 2009, 10:27 PM']Alright, questions of [i]Melkite[/i] notions of in-communion aside, I'm still a bit confused on the Latin side. You had mentioned earlier the Melkites are [i]something[/i] Roma, but not [i]sub[/i] Roma, but I can't find that now. What was that again?

And how is it that Roma is alright with anyone being [i]something[/i] Roma, and not [i]sub[/i] Roma? Perhaps this is answered in the previous discussion, and I can read up on it when you post a reference.[/quote]
You are referring to the post where I quoted the comments made by the Melkite Patriarch in his interview with [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=9772&view=findpost&p=1890815"][u]30 Days[/u][/url] magazine, in which he said that he is: ". . . [i]cum[/i] Petro but not [i]sub[/i] Petro," or [i]sub[/i] Roma, and by this he simply means to say that he is not under ([i]sub[/i]) the pope, but is in communion with ([i]cum[/i]) the pope.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Patrick]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1890988' date='Jun 14 2009, 09:25 PM']Yeah, that is a pretty fair assessment of the situation.

That is why the Melkite Catholic Church issued its profession of faith in the mid-1990s to the Antiochian Orthodox patriarchate, which gave a very kind response to the initiative, even though it did not accept it at the time, saying that there were still many theological questions that needed to be resolved.[/quote]

I'm curious as to what the unresolved theological questions needing resolution are. I found [url="http://www.ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm"]http://www.ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm[/url] but the Orthodox concerns are regarding the relationship between being in communion and being unified in faith. Is this the locus of the theological questions to which you were alluding?

I'm not sure I entirely understood the source I cited, but it at least raised a question of my own:

Antiochian Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, due to not being unified in faith, because Orthodox view in-communionness as the capstone, the full expression, of unity.

But Melkites [i]are[/i] in communion with Rome.

So therefore, which of the following apply?
[list=1]
[*]Melkites are in unity of faith with Rome
[*]Melkites, like Antiochian Orthodox, believe that in-communionness is the capstone, the full expression of unity. Unity of faith is a prerequisite to being in communion
[*]Melkites disagree with Orthodox regarding the seriousness of Roman error, namely that it is not an issue to lose communion about
[/list]

And this question: Do you feel that the Antiochian concerns are primarily that the Melkite view of in-communionness allowing communion with Rome is in error, simply because it allows being in communion with Rome, with whom Antioch has good reason for not being in communion? Or is it something else?

[Patrick]

(sorry -- I double posted somehow. removing, inasmuchas I can figure out how to...)

Edited June 15, 2009 by Patrick

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891083' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:00 PM']I'm curious as to what the unresolved theological questions needing resolution are. I found [url="http://www.ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm"]http://www.ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm[/url] but the Orthodox concerns are regarding the relationship between being in communion and being unified in faith. Is this the locus of the theological questions to which you were alluding?[/quote]
I am going to break your original post into a couple of posts. The first response is below:

It is true that Cardinal Ratzinger rejected the Melkite initiative to the Antiochians, but both the Melkite Patriarch and the Melkite Holy Synod have remained firm in support of it. In fact, according our tradition the Roman Curia has no authority over a [i]sui juris[/i] Patriarchal Church, and so the good Cardinal's letter (i.e., Ratzinger's letter) was, from the Melkite perspective, inappropriate. If anything his correspondence has brought about a firmer resolve on the part of the Melkite Catholic Church to work for the restoration of communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

That said, Rome and the Melkites at present time agree to disagree on the issue, because as is clear from the recent visit to the Holy Land by Pope Benedict, he did not break communion with Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham, even though he had every opportunity to do so, since he met with him both publicly and privately, but for whatever reason the pope choose to reaffirm our existing communion instead of breaking it asunder.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891083' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:00 PM']Antiochian Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, due to not being unified in faith, because Orthodox view in-communionness as the capstone, the full expression, of unity.[/quote]
Below is the response of your own Church to the Melkite initiative:

[quote][b]Response of the Antiochian Orthodox Church[/b]

In October, 1996 the Holy Synod of the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate issued a statement which included these concerns on the Melkite proposal:

[indent]In this regard, our Church questions the unity of faith which the Melkite Catholics think has become possible. Our Church believes that the discussion of this unity with Rome is still in its primitive stage. The first step toward unity on the doctrinal level, is not to consider as ecumenical, the Western local councils which the Church of Rome, convened, separately, including the First Vatican Council.

And second the Melkite Catholics should not be obligated to accept such councils. Regarding inter-communion now, our Synod believes that inter-communion cannot be separated from the unity of faith. Moreover, inter-communion is the last step in the quest for unity and not the first.[/indent]

[i]In a letter to the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, Metropolitan Philip also said:[/i]

[indent]Please be advised that, while we pray for unity among all Christians, we cannot and will not enter into communion with non-Orthodox until we first achieve the unity of faith. As long as this unity of faith is not realized, there cannot be intercommunion. We ask you to adhere to the instructions which you receive from our office and hierarchs.[/indent][/quote]
Clearly, the Melkite Catholic Church's initiative was not accepted by your Church, because your Church does not believe that the Melkite Catholic Church has definitively rejected the ecumenicity of the Western local synods held during the second millennium. That said, the Melkite Church, through actions taken by its Holy Synod, has continued to move forward with the initiative for the restoration of full communion between our two Churches, and has established a commission for dialogue with your Church, with the purpose of trying to resolve real differences, while also assuring the Antiochian Orthodox Church of our Patriarch's and Holy Synod's sincerity in connection with the initiative (i.e., the profession of faith) issued in the mid-1990s.

In my next post I will try to elaborate on the specific points that you have raised.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Patrick]

I thought of a simpler way to word my primary question. Do you see the Antiochian's response as being simply, "We don't see how you can simultaneously be in communion with Rome and have a right understanding of being in communion. Therefore, we might be divided on that issue of faith -- what it means to be in communion."

And if that simplification is appropriate, then what is the Melkite response to that?