Melkites

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891098' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:20 PM']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?[/quote]
Although this is a simpler question, the answer will remain complex.

Basically, I would say, and this is merely my opinion on the matter, that your Church believes that Rome is heretical, while my Church rejects that notion; and the Melkites in general justify our position (i.e., that Rome is not heretical) by saying that the Western councils are not truly ecumenical, which -- as a consequence -- means that the things said at those councils are at most theologoumena (i.e., theological opinions), which no one is bound to accept under penalty of sin (cf. Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby's book entitled: "Ecumenical Reflections").

I have pointed out, in various threads here at Phatmass, that certain teachings contained in the Western councils are contrary to the teachings of the God-bearing Fathers (e.g., Trent's teaching on the "original sin"; and its teaching on "justification"; and also its view that icons do not contain divinity, i.e., what an Eastern Christian would call "divine energy"; and finally, the teaching Lyon II and Florence on the [i]filioque[/i], which fails to take into account the difference between the Spirit's [i]ekporeusis[/i] from the Father, and His [i]proienai[/i] through the Son, etc.). To accept the Western councils as dogmatic would require acceptance of a view of Christianity that is medieval and Scholastic, rather than ancient and Patristic.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Patrick]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1891096' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:18 PM']... 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.[/quote]

Ah... that explains your level of care regarding questions of ecumenicity of, say, Vatican I or II, and the insistence that they are Western [i]local[/i] councils. Interesting.

And Rome's reaction to this specific issue of Melkites considering all 2nd millenium Roman councils as Western local is... undecided, as you were mentioning above with the Pope not cutting communion?

This is a fascinating topic. Thank you for talking it through with me.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1891102' date='Jun 15 2009, 12:26 AM']saying that the Western councils are not truly ecumenical, which -- as a consequence -- means that the things said at those councils are at most theologoumena (i.e., theological opinions), which no one is bound to accept under penalty of sin[/quote]
Do you believe that the non-ecumenical Eastern councils are "at most theologoumena...which no one is bound to accept under penalty of sin"?

[Patrick]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1891102' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:26 PM']Although this is a simpler question, the answer will remain complex.

Basically, I would say, and this is merely my opinion on the matter, that your Church believes that Rome is heretical, while my Church rejects that notion; and the Melkites in general justify our position (i.e., that Rome is not heretical) by saying that the Western councils are not truly ecumenical, which -- as a consequence -- means that the things said at those councils are at most theologoumena (i.e., theological opinions), which no one is bound to accept under penalty of sin (cf. Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby's book entitled: "Ecumenical Reflections").[/quote]

OHH...... I see. That was the sticky point. Aha. Very interesting. I need to chew on that for a minute.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891108' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:36 PM']OHH...... I see. That was the sticky point. Aha. Very interesting. I need to chew on that for a minute.[/quote]
I apologize for any inconvenience, but I added a paragraph to my post above, which adds important information that I probably should have posted as a separate post.

Here is a link to that post: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=95012&view=findpost&p=1891102"][u]Post #21[/u][/url]

Or you can simply scroll back up to the top of the page.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1891106' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:31 PM']Do you believe that the non-ecumenical Eastern councils are "at most theologoumena...which no one is bound to accept under penalty of sin"?[/quote]
Well, of course I believe that, otherwise I would have to say that all Roman Catholics are committing sin by rejecting the decrees of the so-called "Palamite Councils."

As an Eastern Christian I am bound by the teachings of "Palamite" councils, and to all the other enactments of the local Eastern councils that have been incorporated into the [url="http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/synodikon"][u]Synodikon of Orthodoxy[/u][/url].

Moreover, as I have told Resurrexi on several occasions, he is bound by the local councils of the Roman Patriarchate.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Patrick]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1891106' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:31 PM']Do you believe that the non-ecumenical Eastern councils are "at most theologoumena...which no one is bound to accept under penalty of sin"?[/quote]

I'm wondering also if he meant, "...which no one [b]non-local to the council[/b] is bound...". That is, certainly a [i]local[/i] council has more force (of some sort) over the particular locality for which it is held.

Eastern Orthodox, by the way, only hold there to be seven ecumenical councils, and all those are pre-Schism. All others are local in some sense of "localness". That isn't to say they were without influence.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1891112' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:43 PM']Well, of course I believe that, otherwise I would have to say that all Roman Catholics are committing sin by rejecting the decrees of the so-called "Palamite Councils."

As an Eastern Christian I am bound by the teachings of "Palamite" councils, and to all the other enactments of the local Eastern councils that have been incorporated into the [url="http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/synodikon"][u]Synodikon of Orthodoxy[/u][/url].[/quote]

+1 St. Gregory Palamos, and essence/energies distinction! Woot! :-)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891115' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:47 PM']+1 St. Gregory Palamos, and essence/energies distinction! Woot! :-)[/quote]
Reading St. Gregory Palamas' writings was one of the things that slowly helped me to see the beauty of Byzantine theology. Although I must admit, I ridiculed him for a while at first, because I read him with a Scholastic mindset at the beginning (I even wrote a paper against his theology in the late 1990s), but once I read his writings and took off my Western spectacles, I was greatly impressed.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1891112' date='Jun 15 2009, 01:43 AM']Well, of course I believe that, otherwise I would have to say that all Roman Catholics are committing sin by rejecting the decrees of the so-called "Palamite Councils."

As an Eastern Christian I am bound by the teachings of "Palamite" councils, and to all the other enactments of the local Eastern councils that have been incorporated into the [url="http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/synodikon"][u]Synodikon of Orthodoxy[/u][/url].

Moreover, as I have told Resurrexi on several occasions, he is bound by the local councils of the Roman Patriarchate.[/quote]
The Synodikon of Orthodoxy link you gave includes anathemas. To whom were those anathemas directed? If they were directed at everyone, including Latin Catholics, then it seems that the synodikon was claiming universal authority, not just authority over Eastern Christians. How do you reconcile those universal condemnations (if that is what they were) with your belief that Latin Catholics do not commit sin by rejecting the synodikon's decrees?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1891118' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:52 PM']The Synodikon of Orthodoxy link you gave includes anathemas. To whom were those anathemas directed? If they were directed at Latin Catholics, then it seems that the Synodikon was claiming universal authority, not just authority over Eastern Christians. How do you reconcile those universal condemnations (if that is what they were) with your belief that Latin Catholics do not commit sin by rejecting that council's decrees?[/quote]
Yes, for an Eastern Christian to embrace the errors proposed in the Synodikon involves a rejection of the faith as it is taught by the Eastern Fathers and saints. In other words, I cannot embrace the position of Barlaam and be in communion with the Melkite Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1891118' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:52 PM']The Synodikon of Orthodoxy link you gave includes anathemas. To whom were those anathemas directed? If they were directed at everyone, including Latin Catholics, then it seems that the synodikon was claiming universal authority, not just authority over Eastern Christians. How do you reconcile those universal condemnations (if that is what they were) with your belief that Latin Catholics do not commit sin by rejecting that the synodikon's decrees?[/quote]
There is another Eastern Catholic poster here at Phatmass who posted something about the distinction between theological formulations and the faith itself, which always transcends any form of linguistic expression, that was written by Cardinal Lubomyr Husar. You might try doing a search on that topic.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1891120' date='Jun 15 2009, 01:54 AM']Yes, for an Eastern Christian to embrace the errors proposed in the Synodikon involves a rejection of the faith as it is taught by the Eastern Fathers and saints. In other words, I cannot embrace the position of Barlaam and be in communion with the Melkite Church.[/quote]
But it seems to me that the synodikon understands itself as defining the faith, and not just for Eastern Christians. In other words, you exempt Latin Catholics from its anathemas, but would the synodikon itself have exempted them?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1891123' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:58 PM']But it seems to me that the synodikon understands itself as defining the faith, and not just for Eastern Christians.

In other words, you exempt Latin Catholics from its anathemas, but would the synodikon itself have exempted them?[/quote]
That would be the Eastern Orthodox position, but that viewpoint is not shared by the Melkite Patriarch or the Melkite Holy Synod. I suppose that is one of the many things that the Melkite Catholic Church will have to discuss and hopefully clarify in our ecumenical dialogue with the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

[Era Might]

Generally speaking, what authority does the East accord to non-ecumenical synods? For example, suppose one particular Eastern Church does not accept a synod held in another particular Eastern Church. Would the two Churches remain in communion with each other?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1891127' date='Jun 15 2009, 12:03 AM']Generally speaking, what authority does the East accord to non-ecumenical synods? For example, suppose one particular Eastern Church does not accept a synod held in another particular Eastern Church. Would the two Churches remain in communion with each other?[/quote]
I myself have gotten different responses from my Orthodox friends on that topic, but as far as I know all the Orthodox Churches of the Byzantine tradition accept the same local councils, because -- even when a local council has been held by only one patriarchate -- the decrees of that particular council are then sent to the other patriarchates for response and or approval. One of my Eastern Orthodox friends has told me that he accepts anything that has been added to the [i]Synodikon of Orthodoxy[/i] as an expression of the Orthodox faith.

It is probably best that I defer to our Eastern Orthodox Phatmassers for their response. I am sure that they can speak for themselves.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Patrick]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1891102' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:26 PM']Although this is a simpler question, the answer will remain complex.

Basically, I would say, and this is merely my opinion on the matter, that your Church believes that Rome is heretical, while my Church rejects that notion; and the Melkites in general justify our position (i.e., that Rome is not heretical) by saying that the Western councils are not truly ecumenical, which -- as a consequence -- means that the things said at those councils are at most theologoumena (i.e., theological opinions), which no one is bound to accept under penalty of sin (cf. Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby's book entitled: "Ecumenical Reflections").

I have pointed out, in various threads here at Phatmass, that certain teachings contained in the Western councils are contrary to the teachings of the God-bearing Fathers (e.g., Trent's teaching on the "original sin"; and its teaching on "justification"; and also its view that icons do not contain divinity, i.e., what an Eastern Christian would call "divine energy"; and finally, the teaching Lyon II and Florence on the [i]filioque[/i], which fails to take into account the difference between the Spirit's [i]ekporeusis[/i] from the Father, and His [i]proienai[/i] through the Son, etc.). To accept the Western councils as dogmatic would require acceptance of a view of Christianity that is medieval and Scholastic, rather than ancient and Patristic.[/quote]

This gets complicated, doesn't it?

Whether it works or not, I must admit that was an ingenious tactic by Zoghby. I'd like to think out loud here for a moment and just explore this.

So Orthodox reject Rome. Melkites [i]accept[/i] Rome, but [b]only[/b] that part of Rome that was pre-Schism. Melkites are claiming that current Rome = pre-Schism-ok Rome + additional Roman LOCAL innovations. Melkites aren't in the Roman local jurisdiction, and so therefore, the only part of Rome that is forceful upon the Melkites is the pre-Schism part of today's Rome, namely our concept of patriarchal jurisdictions. This, in theory, allows the Rome-critic to be in communion with the Melkites, because the Melkites don't accept Roman error.

It also, in theory, allows Orthodox to be in communion with Rome itself, but obviously, that hasn't happened. From the options that present themselves to me, that could be because it just hasn't happened yet (which I doubt), or because something's still not quite right in this arrangement. Hm...

Also, trying to relegate all Rome's idiosyncracies to locality and not something relevant to inter-communion... does that work? Take a mutually-agreed-upon heretical splinter group (um... which would that be?). They fall out of communion on the basis of their admittedly local beliefs or praxis (with respect to the rest of the world) which are however universal within that locality. I don't think Antioch, in considering its own communion with Rome, could turn a blind eye at its universal-within-locality claims of infallibility of the Pope, etc... firstly because the Latins tend to think their claims [i]are[/i] universal, and secondly because of the error. Which then comes back to, if Antioch in its understanding of inter-communion cannot accept communion with Rome, and Melkites in their understanding can, then there is a difference of understanding, isn't there? Put the other way, if Antioch decides it can be in communion with you (that we have the same understanding), that says that we could in theory entertain communion with Rome on similar grounds that the Melkites consider that Roman inter-communion.

How am I doing so far? Way out there? Pretty close? This is a difficult subject to get one's understanding around.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891115' date='Jun 15 2009, 01:47 AM']+1 St. Gregory Palamos, and essence/energies distinction! Woot! :-)[/quote]



The Holy Roman Church has rejected the real distinction between the Divine Essence and Attributes taught by Palamas. She teaches that the Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves with the Divine Essence (Dr. Ludwig Ott, [i]Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma[/i], p. 28)

The Council of Rheims (Though [i]not [/i]ecumenical, this Council was held under Pope Eugene III.) decreed:

"We believe and confess that God is the simple nature of divinity, and that it cannot be denied in any Catholic sense that God is divinity, and divinity is God. Moreover, if it is said that God is wise by wisdom, great by magnitude, eternal by eternity, one by oneness, God by divinity, and other such things, we believe that He is wise only by that wisdom which is God Himself; that He is great only by that magnitude which is God Himself; that He is eternal only by that eternity which is God Himself; that He is one only by the oneness which is God Himself; that He is God only by that divinity which He is Himself; that is, that He is wise, great, eternal, one God of Himself" (Denzinger 389).

Obviously I know that you, Patrick, don't accept the teaching authority of the Pope; however, I just wanted to comment on the Catholic teaching on Palamas' ideas.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Patrick]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1891130' date='Jun 15 2009, 12:08 AM']I myself have gotten different responses from my Orthodox friends on that topic, but as far as I know all the Orthodox Churches of the Byzantine tradition accept the same local councils, because -- even when a local council has been held by only one patriarchate -- the decrees of that particular council are then sent to the other patriarchates for response and or approval. One of my Eastern Orthodox friends has told me that he accepts anything that has been added to the [i]Synodikon of Orthodoxy[/i] as an expression of the Orthodox faith.

It is probably best that I defer to our Eastern Orthodox Phatmassers for their response. I am sure that they can speak for themselves.[/quote]

Unfortunately, as for myself, I must admit my ignorance at this point and hope that someone more knowledgeable can speak up. Either that, or I'll have to post on it later when I find out more. This general topic of council locality as it relates to intercommunion is quite new to me, personally.

Patrick

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891131' date='Jun 15 2009, 12:11 AM']How am I doing so far? Way out there? Pretty close? This is a difficult subject to get one's understanding around.[/quote]
Yes, I think you get the basic thrust of the Melkite Catholic Church's initiative, and you also see the problems inherent within it, because you are right, Rome does at times -- although not always -- present its local variations as somehow universal. This is one of the problems that Eastern Catholics have when we discuss theology with our Roman Catholic brothers, because as we continue to move ahead with the process of de-Latinization, a process that Rome itself started, there are still large numbers of lay Roman Catholics who have never heard about this process, and -- to be honest -- there are many who have never even heard about the existence of Eastern Catholics. I experienced the latter problem quite frequently while I was working on my MA in Theology at Franciscan University.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun