The Creed

[Resurrexi]

To call him their patriarch is not canonically correct.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894664' date='Jun 17 2009, 05:01 PM']To call him their patriarch is not canonically correct.[/quote]
Oh no! What will they ever do!

[Resurrexi]

You never addressed "kai ex amphoteron aidios os apo mias arches kai monadikes proboles ekporeuetai."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894706' date='Jun 17 2009, 05:37 PM']You never addressed "kai ex amphoteron aidios os apo mias arches kai monadikes proboles ekporeuetai."[/quote]
I have addressed the issue already several times, because I have asserted all along that Florence teaches error on the procession of origin ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Holy Spirit, and ironically enough the Vatican itself -- in the mid 1990s -- stated that the words [i]ekporeusis[/i] and [i]proienai[/i] have different meanings in the Greek language, and that the former term refers to the Father's causing ([i]aition[/i]) the Spirit to exist as [i]hypostasis[/i], while the latter term refers only to the progression ([i]proienai[/i]) of the Spirit from the Father through the Son as energy. Thus, the giver (i.e., the Holy Spirit as person) of all good gifts comes only from the Father, while the gifts given (i.e., the energies of the Spirit) come to mankind from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit.

That said, any proposition that asserts that the Son participates in the [i]ekporeusis[/i] of the Spirit is unbiblical and unpatristic and as such it is erroneous, for that term is reserved to expressing the Spirit's relationship to the Father, Who alone is the font of divinity ([i]pege tes theotetos[/i]).

I must admit that I do not understand why you continue to quote texts from a council that I have openly and consistently rejected as non-ecumenical, as if simply quoting those spurious texts will cause me to given in and accept the errors that you have uncritically embraced. As I told one of my professors at Franciscan University while I was working on my MA in Theology there a few year ago . . . Florence is wrong, because it confuses the meanings of the terms [i]ekporeusis[/i] and [i]proienai[/i], which is contrary to the teaching of the Greek Fathers. Sadly, the Latin bishops at that local Roman synod -- without seeming to understand fully what they were doing -- promoted a form of Sabellian Modalism in the Roman Church by blending the Father and the Son into a single principle ([i]arche[/i]), because -- according to the unanimous teaching of the Greek Fathers -- it is God the Father alone who is the principle of origin within the Trinity, i.e., He is personally the sole [i]arche[/i] within the Godhead. In other words, being [i]arche[/i] is a personal characteristic of the Father and to give that hypostatic property to the Son is to blend them into one person, which is simply a form of the heresy of Sabellius.

Finally, if at some point in the future the Melkite Catholic Church were forced by the Roman Church to accept the decree of Florence as a true dogmatic pronouncement, it follows that I would have no other option but to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, because it would mean that the Roman Church had not simply taught an erroneous opinion ([i]theologoumenon[/i]) at a local council, which has happened in many [i]sui juris[/i] Churches in the past, but that it had openly embraced heresy on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit's procession of origin ([i]ekporeusis[/i]).

Edited June 18, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1894732' date='Jun 17 2009, 08:14 PM']I have addressed the issue already several times,...

I must admit that I do not understand why you continue to quote texts from a council that I have openly and consistently rejected as non-ecumenical,...[/quote]

Luckily he is only laity and not a Bishop, so this retentive acts of a constant barrage of "Council dogma" is not in effect with talks from Rome and the Orthodox.

Funny thing is in your statements you have essentially laid out every argument in regards to the filioque. You beat me to the punch, good sir.

Christ is in our midst,
VK

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Vasilius Konstantinos' post='1894909' date='Jun 18 2009, 12:16 AM']Luckily he is only laity and not a Bishop, so this retentive acts of a constant barrage of "Council dogma" is not in effect with talks from Rome and the Orthodox.
VK[/quote]

Pope Benedict XVI has affirmed the ecumenical status of the Catholic ecumenical councils that Apotheoun denies to be ecumenical. The same Pope has also affirmed the dogmatic status of the doctrines of said councils which Apotheoun denies.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Resurrexi

[KnightofChrist]

[b]Council of Trent:[/b] "What is the Melkite view vis-à-vis the Council of Trent and other such councils that the East was not represented at, and that reflect a specifically western vision of the church? Are we bound by them?

[b]Bishop John's Answer:[/b] Although the Council of Trent was convened in order to meet the challenges of the Reformation in the west, the recapitulation of dogma concerning the sacraments that came from the Council has been an enriching source for the Churches of both east and west. Indeed, you will note that many Eastern theologians have reacted in various ways to the decrees of the Council of Trent. [u]As Catholics, we are bound to all of the decrees of the councils that have been promulgated by the Holy Father.[/u] In [u]some[/u] instances, the decrees of the Council have direct application to the discipline of the west only. Usually this can be discerned either by the decree itself or by its logical application to the discipline of the west.

SORCE: [url="http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm"]http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm[/url]

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Resurrexi,
So what would you have me do then in the name of God. Is converting to Roman Catholicism and dumping the Eastern Orthodox faith the only thing in your dialogue the only thing I can do to not condemn(lol word filters) my soul to eternal Hell because I am not a Papist?

So far, every Priest, every Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, Monsignor, Monk and Abbot I have come in contact with since I have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy has told me that though I am not in union with Rome and the Papacy but that I am in the Church of Jesus Christ nonetheless, and that we are in dialogue for communion. Each person specified that Orthodoxy is the Church, but more or less brothers who are not in acceptance with political and technical differences, not official doctrine which condemns the soul. All have told me that everything is valid, even our Creed. It was even stated that I could partake of Catholic Church communion if I had no Orthodox Church around me or my family if one of us fell deathly ill and needed sacraments.

So what is it that would unite us back as one Church? Or is a strict conversion the only thing that will save us, or you(after all, we do consider the Catholic Church as the heretics who left us and went doctrinally Pope crazy, not vice~versa), from eternal damnation? Please, from a Papal perspective, drudge up the arguments, post them in another thread and have it out.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Vasilius Konstantinos

[KnightofChrist]

[b]View of the Post-Schism Councils:[/b] Must we Eastern Catholics consider the post-schism General Councils of the Roman Church Ecumenical like the Seven of the First Millennium?

[b]Bishop John's Answer:[/b] Patriarch Gregory II Youssef-Sayour occupied the Melkite throne of Antioch for thirty-three years (1864-1897). At Vatican I, the Patriarch gave an impassioned plea to the assembled bishops in defense of the prerogatives of the ancient patriarchs. He said: "The Eastern Church attributes the highest and most complete power to the Pope, but in such a way that the fullness of his power is in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees. (Mansi 52,cols. 133-137). Patriarch Gregory finally signed the document Pastor aeternus but only after adding the phrase made famous at the earlier Council of Florence that expressed his reservations. He added: "salvis omnibus iuribus et privilegiis patriarcharum". {saving all of the rights and privileges of the patriarchs}.

While the first seven ecumenical councils enjoy a place of prominence, especially in the East, both the Churches of the East and West have experienced local councils and synods throughout their rich histories. The early ecumenical councils met to resolve and articulate important Christological doctrines. The Melkite Church participated fully in Vatican I and Patriarch Gregory spoke clearly to his affirmation of the fullness of power enjoyed by the Petrine Office. The Patriarch was very concerned that the exercise of papal powers be "in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees." The second Vatican Council is seen to have completed the unfinished business of Vatican I with its special emphasis on ecclesiology, specifically on the nature of the Church.

Recent theological speculation has developed the concept of "communion of churches" with promising results for ecumenism and rapprochement with the Orthodox. I[u]t would be a simple rekindling of the old controversy of conciliarism to suggest that some councils are less ecumenical than others. With the promulgation of the Holy Father, the doctrinal content of the various councils is a part of the sacred magisterial teaching of the Church to which Melkites in full communion with the See of Rome give wholehearted assent.[/u]

SOURCE: [url="http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm"]http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm[/url]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1894932' date='Jun 18 2009, 12:33 AM'][b]Council of Trent:[/b] "What is the Melkite view vis-à-vis the Council of Trent and other such councils that the East was not represented at, and that reflect a specifically western vision of the church? Are we bound by them?

[b]Bishop John's Answer:[/b] Although the Council of Trent was convened in order to meet the challenges of the Reformation in the west, the recapitulation of dogma concerning the sacraments that came from the Council has been an enriching source for the Churches of both east and west. Indeed, you will note that many Eastern theologians have reacted in various ways to the decrees of the Council of Trent. [u]As Catholics, we are bound to all of the decrees of the councils that have been promulgated by the Holy Father.[/u] In [u]some[/u] instances, the decrees of the Council have direct application to the discipline of the west only. Usually this can be discerned either by the decree itself or by its logical application to the discipline of the west.

SORCE: [url="http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm"]http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm[/url][/quote]


[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1894946' date='Jun 18 2009, 12:40 AM'][b]View of the Post-Schism Councils:[/b] Must we Eastern Catholics consider the post-schism General Councils of the Roman Church Ecumenical like the Seven of the First Millennium?

[b]Bishop John's Answer:[/b] Patriarch Gregory II Youssef-Sayour occupied the Melkite throne of Antioch for thirty-three years (1864-1897). At Vatican I, the Patriarch gave an impassioned plea to the assembled bishops in defense of the prerogatives of the ancient patriarchs. He said: "The Eastern Church attributes the highest and most complete power to the Pope, but in such a way that the fullness of his power is in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees. (Mansi 52,cols. 133-137). Patriarch Gregory finally signed the document Pastor aeternus but only after adding the phrase made famous at the earlier Council of Florence that expressed his reservations. He added: "salvis omnibus iuribus et privilegiis patriarcharum". {saving all of the rights and privileges of the patriarchs}.

While the first seven ecumenical councils enjoy a place of prominence, especially in the East, both the Churches of the East and West have experienced local councils and synods throughout their rich histories. The early ecumenical councils met to resolve and articulate important Christological doctrines. The Melkite Church participated fully in Vatican I and Patriarch Gregory spoke clearly to his affirmation of the fullness of power enjoyed by the Petrine Office. The Patriarch was very concerned that the exercise of papal powers be "in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees." The second Vatican Council is seen to have completed the unfinished business of Vatican I with its special emphasis on ecclesiology, specifically on the nature of the Church.

Recent theological speculation has developed the concept of "communion of churches" with promising results for ecumenism and rapprochement with the Orthodox. I[u]t would be a simple rekindling of the old controversy of conciliarism to suggest that some councils are less ecumenical than others. With the promulgation of the Holy Father, the doctrinal content of the various councils is a part of the sacred magisterial teaching of the Church to which Melkites in full communion with the See of Rome give wholehearted assent.[/u]

SOURCE: [url="http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm"]http://www.melkite.org/Bishop_answers_middler.htm[/url][/quote]

[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]