Syllabus Of Errors Vs Nostra Aetate/dignitatus Humanae

[Evangetholic]

I should start by saying that Melkite Catholics do not believe that our Church is "subject to" or in "submission to" the bishop of Rome (see the comments made by Patriarch Gregory III Laham quoted in post #15 in the thread entitled "Melkites"); instead, we hold that the Roman Church is in communion with our Church, and we are in communion with the Roman Church. Communion is not about one bishop or Church ruling over another bishop or Church. Communion - rightly understood - is about reciprocal fellowship.

 

Now, as far as ecumenical councils are concerned, the Melkite Catholic Church recognizes only the Seven Great Councils of the first millennium as being truly ecumenical, that is, as binding upon all Christians. The councils held by the Roman Church, or by the Eastern Churches for that matter, during the course of the second millennium are held to be only particular synods of the Church that celebrated them.  

 

I have gone into greater detail about all of this a few years ago in a thread called:  Melkites

 

Does the Pope share your Patriarch's views of their relationship? (You probably shouldn't answer that on this thread. Maybe a PM as I am possibly the only person interested.)
 

[Apotheoun]

Does the Pope share your Patriarch's views of their relationship? (You probably shouldn't answer that on this thread. Maybe a PM as I am possibly the only person interested.)
 

Who knows, and it really would not change things if he rejected the Melkite position.  Be that as it may, if the pope does not like or agree with Melkite Catholic teaching he is free to break communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, but - for whatever reason - neither Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict has done that, and both have had ample opportunities to end the fellowship that exists between the Roman Church and the Melkite Church.

[Evangetholic]

So Melkite Catholics do not believe in Papal infallibility or the Pope as the earthly head of the church?

[Nihil Obstat]

Ironically I brought up a very similar thread years ago, although it was met with much more... resistance

In my opinion Phatmass as an aggregate is more accepting of Traditionalist positions than it was, say, two or three years ago. I think there was a very false sense some time ago that certain typical Traditionalist positions were somehow not faithful to the Church, borderline heretical. I do not see that nearly to the same extent right now. I am not sure if people on the individual level have changed, or if it is the slow rotation of new members. Or perhaps something else.

[Apotheoun]

So Melkite Catholics do not believe in Papal infallibility or the Pope as the earthly head of the church?

As a Melkite Catholic I believe that the Church - as a whole - is god-inspired, and that Jesus Christ is the sole head of the Church.  

 

 

N.B.. - A bishop can be styled the head of a synod, but in the tradition of the East we do not call a bishop the head of a Church, nor do we call him a vicar of Christ.  In fact, the term "vicar" implies the absence of the one represented, and - of course - Christ can never be said to be absent from His Church.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Evangetholic]

I see.

[Apotheoun]

Below is an helpful quotation from a book by Anglican author George Every, S.S.M., on the Eastern Christian rejection of the use of the term "vicar":

 

"[In the East] the primacy of Rome was seldom directly denied, in the sense of 'the primacy among her sisters, and the presidency in the first place of honor at General Councils,' but the Latin interpretation of the primacy in terms of jurisdiction revealed a difference between East and West in the doctrine of the Church. Attempts were made to relate this to the [i]filioque[/i], but these could not penetrate to the heart of the matter while the distinctive element in Latin theology was very little, if at all, understood in the East. St. Augustine was not translated into Greek before the fourteenth century. His [I]De Civitate Dei[/I] and his anti-Donatist writings did much to determine the development of the Western doctrine of the Church, as his anti-Pelagian writings are the starting-point of all Western controversies on the nature of grace. Grace is the connecting link between theology (in the Byzantine sense of the doctrine of the Trinity) and ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church. The Eastern Churches never had a doctrine of created grace, of the gifts of God apart from the gift of Himself to the baptized who are buried and risen with Christ and live and reign in the Holy Spirit. Therefore they could never understand the idea of the vicar of Christ ruling His Church in His absence. They thought of their bishops not in the first place as rulers, but as high-priests in the presence of Christ and the Spirit, witnesses to the truth, and stewards of the mysteries of God." [George Every, S.S.M., [u]The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204[/u], pages 191-192]

[Evangetholic]

I agree with you I suppose. :) Why (and this is becoming rude us having this conversation here) is this statement unity when you make it, but schism when Constantinople says it and heresy when Canterbury says it?

Oh and George EVERY <3

[Apotheoun]

I agree with you I suppose. :) Why (and this is becoming rude us having this conversation here) is this statement unity when you make it, but schism when Constantinople says it and heresy when Canterbury says it?

That is a good question, but the only answer at present is that in the case of the Roman Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches the fellowship of communion is by mutual assent; while - in the case of the other groups you mentioned - this mutuality is missing (e.g., the Eastern Orthodox do not accept the idea that Rome can have doctrinal formulations that are distinct from those enshrined in the ecumenical councils - like the filioque, and so communion is not possible).

It should also be noted that Rome has not always been open to the idea of unity in diversity, which is why the Eastern Catholic Churches suffered varying degrees of Latinization over the years.  In fact, Rome at one time openly taught that the Latin liturgy was superior to all others, and that all other liturgies and para-liturgical devotions should be conformed - in varying degrees - to the practice of the Roman Church (this Roman ecclesial imperialism often went under the name "praestantia ritus latini").

[Evangetholic]

Honestly I don't know what to do. I cannot remain "an Anglican" my beliefs too closely match the Ancient Church to be subjected to Lady Priestesses, Lady Bishops, active homosexual clergy, "barely there supernaturalism," and all the rest. But I can neither see myself bending the knee to Rome nor swimming the sad gap that divides East from West. And other varieties of Protestantism are unimaginable to me, child of incense, and holy water that I am. What's a boy to do?

[PhuturePriest]

Honestly I don't know what to do. I cannot remain "an Anglican" my beliefs too closely match the Ancient Church to be subjected to Lady Priestesses, Lady Bishops, active homosexual clergy, "barely there supernaturalism," and all the rest. But I can neither see myself bending the knee to Rome nor swimming the sad gap that divides East from West. And other varieties of Protestantism are unimaginable to me, child of incense, and holy water that I am. What's a boy to do?

 

Read Crossing The Tiber by Stephen Ray. He used to be a Baptist that hated the Church, and it is his story on how he finally converted to Catholicism and accepted that it wasn't a pagan cult that worshiped statues and couldn't tell you what the four Gospels are. Even if it doesn't convince you, it's still an amazing story to read.

[Evangetholic]

I don't believe any of that nonsense about Catholicism.

[Apotheoun]

Honestly I don't know what to do. I cannot remain "an Anglican" my beliefs too closely match the Ancient Church to be subjected to Lady Priestesses, Lady Bishops, active homosexual clergy, "barely there supernaturalism," and all the rest. But I can neither see myself bending the knee to Rome nor swimming the sad gap that divides East from West. And other varieties of Protestantism are unimaginable to me, child of incense, and holy water that I am. What's a boy to do?

As a former Anglican myself I understand what it is like to be in your situation.  I will keep you in my prayers.

[Nihil Obstat]

[...]
It should also be noted that Rome has not always been open to the idea of unity in diversity, which is why the Eastern Catholic Churches suffered varying degrees of Latinization over the years.  
[...]

John Ireland. <_< He had much to answer for after he passed.

[Evangetholic]

John Ireland. <_< He had much to answer for after he passed.

 

Who dat?

Who dat?

 

Nigh chile you know. He dis man:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ireland_%28bishop%29