Melkites

[Patrick]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1890988' date='Jun 14 2009, 09:25 PM']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.[/quote]

I'm curious as to what the unresolved theological questions needing resolution are. I found [url="http://www.ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm"]http://www.ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm[/url] but the Orthodox concerns are regarding the relationship between being in communion and being unified in faith. Is this the locus of the theological questions to which you were alluding?

I'm not sure I entirely understood the source I cited, but it at least raised a question of my own:

Antiochian Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, due to not being unified in faith, because Orthodox view in-communionness as the capstone, the full expression, of unity.

But Melkites [i]are[/i] in communion with Rome.

So therefore, which of the following apply?
[list=1]
[*]Melkites are in unity of faith with Rome
[*]Melkites, like Antiochian Orthodox, believe that in-communionness is the capstone, the full expression of unity. Unity of faith is a prerequisite to being in communion
[*]Melkites disagree with Orthodox regarding the seriousness of Roman error, namely that it is not an issue to lose communion about
[/list]

And this question: Do you feel that the Antiochian concerns are primarily that the Melkite view of in-communionness allowing communion with Rome is in error, simply because it allows being in communion with Rome, with whom Antioch has good reason for not being in communion? Or is it something else?

[Patrick]

(sorry -- I double posted somehow. removing, inasmuchas I can figure out how to...)

Edited June 15, 2009 by Patrick

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891083' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:00 PM']I'm curious as to what the unresolved theological questions needing resolution are. I found [url="http://www.ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm"]http://www.ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm[/url] but the Orthodox concerns are regarding the relationship between being in communion and being unified in faith. Is this the locus of the theological questions to which you were alluding?[/quote]
I am going to break your original post into a couple of posts. The first response is below:

It is true that Cardinal Ratzinger rejected the Melkite initiative to the Antiochians, but both the Melkite Patriarch and the Melkite Holy Synod have remained firm in support of it. In fact, according our tradition the Roman Curia has no authority over a [i]sui juris[/i] Patriarchal Church, and so the good Cardinal's letter (i.e., Ratzinger's letter) was, from the Melkite perspective, inappropriate. If anything his correspondence has brought about a firmer resolve on the part of the Melkite Catholic Church to work for the restoration of communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

That said, Rome and the Melkites at present time agree to disagree on the issue, because as is clear from the recent visit to the Holy Land by Pope Benedict, he did not break communion with Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham, even though he had every opportunity to do so, since he met with him both publicly and privately, but for whatever reason the pope choose to reaffirm our existing communion instead of breaking it asunder.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1891083' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:00 PM']Antiochian Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, due to not being unified in faith, because Orthodox view in-communionness as the capstone, the full expression, of unity.[/quote]
Below is the response of your own Church to the Melkite initiative:

[quote][b]Response of the Antiochian Orthodox Church[/b]

In October, 1996 the Holy Synod of the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate issued a statement which included these concerns on the Melkite proposal:

[indent]In this regard, our Church questions the unity of faith which the Melkite Catholics think has become possible. Our Church believes that the discussion of this unity with Rome is still in its primitive stage. The first step toward unity on the doctrinal level, is not to consider as ecumenical, the Western local councils which the Church of Rome, convened, separately, including the First Vatican Council.

And second the Melkite Catholics should not be obligated to accept such councils. Regarding inter-communion now, our Synod believes that inter-communion cannot be separated from the unity of faith. Moreover, inter-communion is the last step in the quest for unity and not the first.[/indent]

[i]In a letter to the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, Metropolitan Philip also said:[/i]

[indent]Please be advised that, while we pray for unity among all Christians, we cannot and will not enter into communion with non-Orthodox until we first achieve the unity of faith. As long as this unity of faith is not realized, there cannot be intercommunion. We ask you to adhere to the instructions which you receive from our office and hierarchs.[/indent][/quote]
Clearly, the Melkite Catholic Church's initiative was not accepted by your Church, because 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. That said, the Melkite Church, through actions taken by its Holy Synod, has continued to move forward with the initiative for the restoration of full communion between our two Churches, and has established a commission for dialogue with your Church, with the purpose of trying to resolve real differences, while also assuring the Antiochian Orthodox Church of our Patriarch's and Holy Synod's sincerity in connection with the initiative (i.e., the profession of faith) issued in the mid-1990s.

In my next post I will try to elaborate on the specific points that you have raised.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Patrick]

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?

[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?