Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Syllabus Of Errors Vs Nostra Aetate/dignitatus Humanae


Basilisa Marie

Recommended Posts

Well, actually, it looks like quite a lot of Melkites do believe that Papal infallibility is dogma and that believing what Rome teaches is a necessary part of being in communion with Rome (per a 15 page long conversation I'm still reading on that other site).

Edited by Evangetholic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, actually, it looks like quite a lot of Melkites do believe that Papal infallibility is dogma and that believing what Rome teaches is a necessary part of being in communion with Rome (per a 15 page long conversation I'm still reading on that other site).

Yes, there are some Melkites who have been affected by Latinization, but the Melkite Patriarch and the Holy Synod are not among them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a discussion that, past experience shows, will never end. :) Just in case you were expecting it to come to some natural conclusion, Evange. :smile3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is an intervention by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch at the Synod of Bishops in Rome in 2001:

 

 

 

 
H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria
 
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!
 
 
Taken from the Vatican website:  Intervention at 2001 Synod in Rome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is an intervention by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch at the Synod of Bishops in Rome in 2001:

 

 

 

 
H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria
 
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!
 
 
Taken from the Vatican website:  Intervention at 2001 Synod in Rome

 

What now? He sounds like Canterbury. The Ashkenazi Jew in me admires the chutzpah--what about this from 1990 Code of Canons of Oriental Churches:

 

anon 7 - §1. The Christian faithful are
those who, incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted
as the people of God; for this reason, since they have become sharers
in Christ's priestly, prophetic and royal function in their own manner;
they are called, in accordance with the condition proper to each, to
exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in
the world.

 Â§2. This Church, constituted and organized as a society in this world,
subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and
the bishops in communion with him.

.Canon 42 - Just as, by the Lord's decision,
Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a
similar way the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops,
successors of the Apostles, are joined together.



Chapter I.  The Roman Pontiff



Canon 43 - The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office
(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles
and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of
bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth;
therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full,
immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always
freely exercise.



Canon 44 - §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the
Church by means of legitimate election accepted by him together with
episcopal consecration; therefore, one who is already a bishop obtains
this same power from the moment he accepts his election to the
pontificate, but if the one elected lacks the episcopal character, he is
to be ordained a bishop immediately.

 Â§2. If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office
(munus), it is required for validity that he makes the resignation
freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by
anyone.



Canon 45 - §1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not
only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of
ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the
proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the
eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

 Â§2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme
pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other
bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according
to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or
collegial, of exercising this function.

 Â§3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.



Canon 46 - §1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is
assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is
the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia,
pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him
according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes
carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority
for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law
established by the Roman Pontiff himself.

 Â§2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside
over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special
norms established by the Roman Pontiff.



Canon 47 - When the Roman see is vacant or entirely impeded nothing is
to be innovated in the governance of the entire Church; however, special
laws enacted for those circumstances are to be observed.



Canon 48 - In this Code the term "Apostolic See" or "Holy See" applies
not only to the Roman Pontiff but also, unless it is otherwise
prescribed by the law or the nature of the matter indicates otherwise,
dicasteries and other institutes of the Roman curia.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do Melkites have a different code of Canon law than other Eastern Catholics?



I'm really not arguing or advocating any particular position, I'm just confused as to how the Pope and the Melkite Patriarch who most probably should consider one another heretics are still in communion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the Patriarch pointed out in the text I quoted, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) ratified customs absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology, because of course the CCEO is not an Eastern document at all, but is a document issued by Rome and written in Latin.  In fact, 80 percent of the canons in the CCEO, and 90 percent of the text, is basically identical to the 1983 Latin Church's Code of Canon Law (CIC).  Interestingly, Cardinal Kasper, some years ago, said that the CCEO was not intended to be a permanent document, but was only an intermediary instrument that would cease upon the restoration of communion with the Eastern Orthodox.  Strange I know, but evidently Rome recognizes that it will never be able to force the East to accept the CCEO as legitimate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do Melkites have a different code of Canon law than other Eastern Catholics?



I'm really not arguing or advocating any particular position, I'm just confused as to how the Pope and the Melkite Patriarch who most probably should consider one another heretics are still in communion.

In the day to day life of the Melkite Church the CCEO is irrelevant. The parishes I have attended have always basically followed the Typikon and the Pedalion. It is Rome that uses the CCEO, which is basically a Roman Curial document, but it really does not affect the lives of Eastern Catholics and really is foreign to our tradition.

 

Now, as far as the canonical traditions of the East are concerned, prior to Rome's issuance of the CCEO all the Eastern Catholic Churches had their own canons, all of which were based on the Pedalion in the Byzantine Rite. But alas, in the 1980s Rome decided to throw out the historic canonical traditions of the various Eastern Churches and replaced those collections of canons with a one size fits all code book that is for all practical purposes a slightly revised version of the Roman Church's own 1983 code. This really made no sense because Christians of the Byzantine tradition, and those of the Coptic or Ethiopic, or Armenian, or Malabar traditions, et al., had different ways of living the faith, and very different historical origins. Rome sometimes takes a bureaucratic approach to the faith that tries to homogenize everything into the lowest common denominator. The CCEO as written really is unworkable, but Rome will keep trying for a while.

Edited by Apotheoun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .

 

I'm really not arguing or advocating any particular position, I'm just confused as to how the Pope and the Melkite Patriarch who most probably should consider one another heretics are still in communion.

That is between the two of them.  But I will say this:  when the pope visited the Middle East last year he met with Patriarch Gregory III Laham and they celebrated liturgy together and had a private meeting, and evidently all is well between them, because neither man issued a decree of excommunication against the other.  

 

:paco:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this will be my last post on this most curious form of unity, lol, but melkite.org says the following:

 

When we declared our union with Rome – in consistency with Apostolic
tradition interrupted somehow by historical circumstances – we accepted
the Catholic faith in its entirety. We do recognize the authority of the
Pope of Rome, including universal jurisdiction and infallibility for
whatever concerns faith and morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is between the two of them.  But I will say this:  when the pope visited the Middle East last year he met with Patriarch Gregory III Laham and they celebrated liturgy together and had a private meeting, and evidently all is well between them, because neither man issued a decree of excommunication against the other.  

 

:paco:

 


I'm such a liar when I say no more, but not really, I mean these things when I say them. Some random guy on that monster thread on that other site says the folowing and I find it interesting:

 

Your premise is incorrect, namely, that Rome is actually
willing to discipline a bishop for preaching what it considers to be
heresy. The fact is that not one bishop has been excommunicated for
heresy since Vatican II, even among those bishops who have openly denied
certain basic Christological doctrines. The sole case I could think of
was Bishop Jacques Galliot, the radical left-wing bishop, who has not
even excommunicated but merely deprived of a diocese, and that happened
only after his fellow French bishops petitioned Rome to remove him.
Where have you been all these years?

All excommunications of
bishops in the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II have been due to
grave disciplinary breaches -- the ordination of bishops not appointed
by Rome, to be exact (Ngo Dinh Thuc, Lefebvre, De Castro Mayer,
Milingo).

I am not, of course, saying that Patriarch Gregorios
is a heretic. What I am saying is that even if he were, that would not
necessarily mean that he will be excluded from concelebration.

Such is the bare reality about current politics in Rome.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . 

 

I'm really not arguing or advocating any particular position, I'm just confused as to how the Pope and the Melkite Patriarch who most probably should consider one another heretics are still in communion.

It is interesting, but the same website also gives the following questions and answers, which are to be used in high school catechesis (something I have done at a few parishes):

 

 

 

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
 
 
Melkites can be a kooky bunch. It is also important to note that even the more Latinized Melkites who might accept certain Roman "dogmas" do not interpret those so-called "dogmas" in the same way that Roman Catholics do. For example:  Is the pope infallible?  Sure, but so is your local bishop when he teaches the true faith.
 
Finally, in a speech given by the Melkite Patriarch at Holy Apostles College he went out of his way to point out that there have only been seven ecumenical councils, and that teachings peculiar to Rome need not be accepted in the way that Rome formulated them (e.g., the Immaculate Conception, and the filioque).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the good things that comes from the quirky state of affairs between the Roman Church and the Melkite Church is that if these two Churches can maintain their existing communion it follows that communion with the Eastern Orthodox remains a possibility, but if Rome eventually decides that communion requires becoming Latin then it is clear that Christendom will never be reunified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christendom is not merely these (dozens) of organizations. In one very real sense, the most profound sense of all, we are Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant united already. I need Jesus commands that unity to be more real than the mess we are currently faced with though. "Let them be one." The state of affairs we as Christians are allowing to exist has brought tears from my eyes on many occasions and I fear that His patience in these matters running out and us discovering that we serve a God who will not be mocked.



In short you could not pay me to be a Bishop/Patriarch/Pope in any Christian Church--this kind of chaos can only continue because of human sin.

Edited by Evangetholic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...