By the way, would you kindly address the inconsistency in the story of how you were received as rakovksy pointed out below? Thank you:He wanted to anoint him with oil, until he was told that he was already anointed in the Melkite Church.
The conversation went something like this: "Hey Abbouna... this is the second Sunday in a row I've been coming to this church. I am Melkite and I'd like to start coming here. But I'd also like to receive communion." His response: "Welcome to the church. I have no issues giving you communion, since you are Melkite, just come regularly if you were RC, Maronite, etc... then I'd have to chrismate you".I think that is not how the conversation really went.
He wanted to anoint me with oil first.
Who knows what the real story is.
It seems that the two accounts conflict. In one, he wants to anoint him with oil and later relents or changes his mind (perhaps upon discovering that he was already anointed in the Melkite Catholic Church as you've described). In the other, he welcomes him to the chalice with no qualifications right from the start with no mention of anointing him at all. Now his story is "what you said". I;m not sure that was the case from the beginning, considering his track record for trolling and inconsistencies in this thread.
If a Mormon said Mormon theology was orthodox he's be lying. If a Melkite said Melkitism was orthodox...
...he would also be lying.
There was in fact a major gathering of 28 Melkite bishops who declared themselves in agreement with the EOs in theological disputes with Rome.
Melkite Synod in 'rebellion'
See also the 1975 Zoghby initiative and its profession of faith:
Then they should've left Rome and its errors and become Orthodox.
So let's say a major Melkite gathering of bishops declared that they accepted the RC Councils as truth, and then went point by point rejecting every theological statement by those RC Councils that disagreed with Orthodoxy. Would that make them definitely Orthodox in the substance of their theology?
Since our theology is lived, no. Intellectually understanding that something is wrong and living out that knowledge are two different things. If a woman is aware that her husband is a serial killer, and she understands that this is wrong, but continues to live with him and doesn't call the cops even after he kidnaps his latest girl, is she innocent or complicit in his crimes?
To put it another way, if a Council makes wrong theology and you accept the Council while stipulating that you oppose the wrong theology, does that make you heretical?
The council would have to repudiate said errors before I could accept it. Accepting the council means accepting the council.
Alternately, if a Council makes right theology, and you reject the Council and its theological statement as heretical, while proposing a theological alternative to it that is in fact Orthodox, does that make you Orthodox in theology?
It depends. Are you rejecting the council because you reject the Orthodox statements it has made, or are you rejecting it because of its abusive actions and tacit acceptance of heretical documents? Are we really doing this here?
I'm not sure it's a matter of theological falsehood from their perspective. The Melkites recognise that the Latins have a particular theology and practice of marriage and they accept that, but they don't accept that for themselves. If two Latins get married in a ceremony officiated by a RC deacon, the Melkites would accept that as a real marriage. If two Melkites get married in a ceremony officiated by a Melkite deacon, it's not a valid marriage and probably the deacon faces the possibility of some canonical sanctions. The underlying reason for that is not merely a difference in ritual, but how that difference in ritual reflects theology.
"Catholic is Catholic is Catholic" only takes you so far, even by Catholic standards.
I understand that this is their perspective on the matter. I don't the that perspective as being valid. I see it as being inconsistent, incoherent, and hypocritical. It's a cheap and practically meaningless definition of what it means to be in communion and what it means to have a valid and canonical marriage.
I'm not arguing its consistency or inconsistency. Whether we think it consistent or not, it is part of how Melkites and Latins co-exist in the same communion, and as a consequence there are some legitimate differences which we can and ought to take into account when dealing with a Melkite vs a Latin.
Discerning what their point of view is doesn't mean we recognize the concept as valid. Whether or not you are interested in arguing consistency or inconsistency here, I think it matters.