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