Why

[ialmisry]

To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

So if your supreme pontiff has not stated he has spoken "ex cathedra" on Zoghby, what is the problem with the Melkite bishops exercising that power that Elijahmaria claims they have under Pastor Aeternus?

Maybe the Melkite bishops you refer to, understand the Faith. We just need them to follow through consistently.

To be fair, I find ex cathedra criticism ironic from the Orthodox, who accept Ecumenical Councils, and yet don't know exactly when they were accepted as Ecumenical.

325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 681 and 787

[ialmisry]

To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

To REALLY be fair, you keep asking for some sort of list from all the wrong places, without realizing that you miss the point of ex cathedra statements entirely.

Besides creating an aura around your supreme pontiff, they have not point.

You also think that "ex cathedra" is the ONLY time some statement or teaching MUST be believed.

To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.

so you don't miss it this time.

You keep basing your understanding of Catholic teaching on what the laity says or what some secular priest in a classroom has said to you, or what you THINK he has said to you.

Ah, the gnosticism of the Vatican, open only to those who got the decoder ring.

To REALLY be fair, you are not an expert on Catholic teaching.

I know a lot on Catholic teaching.  And what the Vatican teaches too.  Enough to know the difference.

[ZealousZeal]

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

[Cavaradossi]

To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

So if your supreme pontiff has not stated he has spoken "ex cathedra" on Zoghby, what is the problem with the Melkite bishops exercising that power that Elijahmaria claims they have under Pastor Aeternus?

Maybe the Melkite bishops you refer to, understand the Faith. We just need them to follow through consistently.

To be fair, I find ex cathedra criticism ironic from the Orthodox, who accept Ecumenical Councils, and yet don't know exactly when they were accepted as Ecumenical.

But along the same vein, do the Catholics know when their ecumenical councils became ecumenical? I've seen Catholics criticize the Orthodox insistence that we only know of a council's ecumenical nature after the fact, but doesn't the way that canonists gradually started adding on the Lateran Councils and the Councils at Lyons seem to indicate that the same process (after the fact recognition) happens in Catholicism too? Doesn't that seem to indicate that there is a flaw in the belief that one can reduce the trait of being ecumenical down into a few basic criteria?

[Peter J]

So, all of you who disagree with the Zoghby Initiative, do any of you believe that its supporters are automatically excommunicated? I don't think anyone is claiming that, but I'd rather ask than assume.

This is impossible.  

Thanks MarkosC. So would you agree then that it can't be used as grounds for other Catholic to politely encourage (or whatever you want to call it) them to leave the Church?

[elijahmaria]

I know a lot on Catholic teaching.  And what the Vatican teaches too.  Enough to know the difference.

One may have a handle on Orthodox teaching, and you certainly know Orthodox negative teaching about Catholics:  But you haven't got a clue about Catholic teaching.  Unless one understands Catholic teaching, rightly, it is impossible for one to know anyone's reality. 

[primuspilus]

To be fair, I find ex cathedra criticism ironic from the Orthodox, who accept Ecumenical Councils, and yet don't know exactly when they were accepted as Ecumenical

Sure we do. The acceptance of something by the faithful makes it ecumenical. Not one person who demands it. ex cathedra can not be compared to an ecumenical council. The two are not the same thing.


PP

[Aindriú]

To be fair, I find ex cathedra criticism ironic from the Orthodox, who accept Ecumenical Councils, and yet don't know exactly when they were accepted as Ecumenical

Sure we do. The acceptance of something by the faithful makes it ecumenical. Not one person who demands it. ex cathedra can not be compared to an ecumenical council. The two are not the same thing.


PP

That didn't answer the question of "what is" and "when is it".

[Aindriú]

To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

So if your supreme pontiff has not stated he has spoken "ex cathedra" on Zoghby, what is the problem with the Melkite bishops exercising that power that Elijahmaria claims they have under Pastor Aeternus?

Maybe the Melkite bishops you refer to, understand the Faith. We just need them to follow through consistently.

To be fair, I find ex cathedra criticism ironic from the Orthodox, who accept Ecumenical Councils, and yet don't know exactly when they were accepted as Ecumenical.

But along the same vein, do the Catholics know when their ecumenical councils became ecumenical? I've seen Catholics criticize the Orthodox insistence that we only know of a council's ecumenical nature after the fact, but doesn't the way that canonists gradually started adding on the Lateran Councils and the Councils at Lyons seem to indicate that the same process (after the fact recognition) happens in Catholicism too? Doesn't that seem to indicate that there is a flaw in the belief that one can reduce the trait of being ecumenical down into a few basic criteria?

Catholics say it's ecumenical when it's ratified by the Pope.

[Peter J]

Catholics say it's ecumenical when it's ratified by the Pope.

Officially our position is that ratification by the Pope is a necessary condition, but unofficially I've heard many Catholics say that it is both necessary and sufficient. (We had a big discussion about this on CAF a couple months ago.)

[elijahmaria]

Catholics say it's ecumenical when it's ratified by the Pope.

Officially our position is that ratification by the Pope is a necessary condition, but unofficially I've heard many Catholics say that it is both necessary and sufficient. (We had a big discussion about this on CAF a couple months ago.)

To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?

[J Michael]

Catholics say it's ecumenical when it's ratified by the Pope.

Officially our position is that ratification by the Pope is a necessary condition, but unofficially I've heard many Catholics say that it is both necessary and sufficient. (We had a big discussion about this on CAF a couple months ago.)

To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?

What???  You mean all doze "ifs", "a's", "thes", "ands", "buts" *NOT* infallible??  Is *outrage*!!!   

[Papist]

Catholics say it's ecumenical when it's ratified by the Pope.

Officially our position is that ratification by the Pope is a necessary condition, but unofficially I've heard many Catholics say that it is both necessary and sufficient. (We had a big discussion about this on CAF a couple months ago.)

To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?

What???  You mean all doze "ifs", "a's", "thes", "ands", "buts" *NOT* infallible??  Is *outrage*!!!   

Like

[NicholasMyra]

To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?

No amount of ratification, inerrancy or infallibility has ever been sufficiently potent as to terminate our need to think.

Despite the valiant attempts of innumerable Hyperdox and Hyperfranko-teutonic-lombardians.  

[Papist]

To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?

No amount of ratification, inerrancy or infallibility has ever been sufficiently potent as to terminate our need to think.

Despite the valiant attempts of innumerable Hyperdox and Hyperfranko-teutonic-lombardians.  

We're here, we're franko-teutonic-lombardians, get used to it! We're here, we're franko-teutonic-lombardians, get used to it.

[NicholasMyra]

To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?

No amount of ratification, inerrancy or infallibility has ever been sufficiently potent as to terminate our need to think.

Despite the valiant attempts of innumerable Hyperdox and Hyperfranko-teutonic-lombardians.  

We're here, we're franko-teutonic-lombardians, get used to it! We're here, we're franko-teutonic-lombardians, get used to it.

I tried to sell a rockin' screenplay, but they went with "Last of the Mohicans" instead.

[ialmisry]

I know a lot on Catholic teaching.  And what the Vatican teaches too.  Enough to know the difference.

One may have a handle on Orthodox teaching,

Certainly better than your nameless Orthodox "experts."

and you certainly know Orthodox negative teaching about Catholics:

 
As the Catholics are such by confessing the Orthodox Faith, Orthodoxy has no negative teaching about Catholics.

As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  The Vatican being out of Catholic communion, the only part of its teaching that concerns us is that which keeps it of Catholic communion, and hence of course a negative thing.

But you haven't got a clue about Catholic teaching.

Of course I have more than clue about Catholic teaching.  That's why I embraced Orthodoxy.

But as to the Vatican: so you keep on asserting an alleged ignorance on my part, assertions more and more vacuous as the evidence to the contrary piles up.  Knowing the Vatican's teaching means not to drink the Kool-Aid.

Unless one understands Catholic teaching, rightly, it is impossible for one to know anyone's reality.

 
Since the Vatican's teaching is not true, it has no real reality.

To go back to your original response to the OP: the schism is a reality. A negative reality, but that doesn't negate its reality.  You turning a deaf ear to its cognitive dissonance does not change that, and your continued denial of that only affirms my expertise and right to speak of your ecclesiastical community because you keep on trying to assert it as part of the Orthodox Church.  As I know my Orthodox reality quite well.

[Peter J]

As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  

No, there are positive statements too.

[biro]

As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  

No, there are positive statements too.

Yeah, the museum's kind of nice... 

[primuspilus]

As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  

No, there are positive statements too.

Yeah, the museum's kind of nice... 

Statues are pretty....

PP

[ialmisry]

As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  

No, there are positive statements too.

Yeah, the museum's kind of nice... 

Statues are pretty....

PP

Look at all the manuscripts!

[Peter J]

As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  

No, there are positive statements too.

Yeah, the museum's kind of nice... 

Statues are pretty....

PP

Look at all the manuscripts!

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Iconodule]

 Nevertheless, he has not been condemned by the Pope (the Pope being the only person whose opinion really matters and who could excommunicate someone)

So the opinion of an "ecumenical council" (Vatican I, including the Pope who presided over it) doesn't matter. Interesting.

[Peter J]

 Nevertheless, he has not been condemned by the Pope (the Pope being the only person whose opinion really matters and who could excommunicate someone)

So the opinion of an "ecumenical council" (Vatican I, including the Pope who presided over it) doesn't matter. Interesting.

You're assuming that he considers VI to be an ecumenical council, but most Melkites believe there have only been 7 ecumenical councils.

[Iconodule]

Nevertheless, he has not been condemned by the Pope (the Pope being the only person whose opinion really matters and who could excommunicate someone)

So the opinion of an "ecumenical council" (Vatican I, including the Pope who presided over it) doesn't matter. Interesting.

You're assuming that he considers VI to be an ecumenical council, but most Melkites believe there have only been 7 ecumenical councils.

But the Pope, whose opinion apparently is the only one that matters, considers VI ecumenical. Sorry, the Melkites don't have a leg to stand on.

[witega]

But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

Okay... but that actually raises more questions than it answers.
First off, the statement from Vatican 1, is basically an if/then structure with the 'then' being 'let him be anathema'. So if the Melkites agree with the first part (the if), but don't agree with the second, then doesn't that mean they disagree with the *statement*? (I mean, if I say, 'If lies on their job application, let him stoned to death'--and you agree that lieing is bad, but don't agree that those who do it should be stoned to death, aren't you disagreeing with the statement as whole)? So if the Melkites don't agree with the anathema, there's still my question of how that can be acceptable to Rome (although other posters seem to be indicating that this is not the case, in which case only the other part of my question applies.

But further to that, (although in some ways a restatement of earlier confusion), if the Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy, then how can they disagree with the anathema? Doesn't Papal Supremacy mean that the Roman Magisterium represented at Vatican I has legitimate authority to issue anathemas?

[Apotheoun]

As a Melkite Catholic I believe in papal primacy, while rejecting the spurious notion of papal supremacy.   After all, being the first bishop among the other bishops is not the same as being the supreme bishop over all the other bishops.

[Iconodule]

To summarize the Melkite position: The RC's teach false dogma (AKA heresy) but that's OK as long as they don't excommunicate us.

[Apotheoun]

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.

[Apotheoun]

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

[podkarpatska]

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.

Yet, the problem remains, as many Orthodox scholars could accept the concept of Vatican I being nothing more than a 'general' synod of the West - provided Rome accepts that perspective. Not likely - even if this Pope or any future Pope so desired.

But the way in which we Orthodox, or the Melkites for that matter, regard that council is not really relevant unless Rome backs down. As long as the Romans regard Pastor Aeternus as an infallible expression of dogma - not a theological opinion- there can be no 'peace' - only an 'uneasy truce.' Sort of like the armistice which ended the Korean Conflict - we are not drawing blood, but there is always a lot of noise and the threat of open warfare looms over all. (Relax, it's just a bad analogy.)

[Apotheoun]

Rome has had an exaggerated opinion of its importance for centuries, even going back into the first millennium itself, and so it is not really that important an issue to worry about.  After all, St. Stephen and St. Cyprian did not agree when it came to the papal office and both are held to be saints and faithful Catholics, and I really do not see this present situation as any different.

[Papist]

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.

So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

[podkarpatska]

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.

So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

I am curious as to what our other 'regular' Eastern Catholic posters have to say about Apotheoun's comments. Frankly, the concept of viewing the Roman church's post schism councils as 'local' and not 'ecumenical' has intrigued more than a few Orthodox scholars for some time. However, it seems a 'pipe dream' to believe that Rome would ever be able to depart from its defense of these councils and their proclamations without causing a major internal schism.  Even if a Pope were to speak from the chair -'ex cathedra' - so to speak.

[Peter J]

But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

Okay... but that actually raises more questions than it answers.
First off, the statement from Vatican 1, is basically an if/then structure with the 'then' being 'let him be anathema'. So if the Melkites agree with the first part (the if), but don't agree with the second, then doesn't that mean they disagree with the *statement*? (I mean, if I say, 'If lies on their job application, let him stoned to death'--and you agree that lieing is bad, but don't agree that those who do it should be stoned to death, aren't you disagreeing with the statement as whole)?

Yes, that makes sense ...

So if the Melkites don't agree with the anathema, there's still my question of how that can be acceptable to Rome (although other posters seem to be indicating that this is not the case, in which case only the other part of my question applies.

... but there's no anathema that says "If anyone (e.g. the Melkites) say that VI is not an ecumenical council, let them be anathema."

But further to that, (although in some ways a restatement of earlier confusion), if the Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy, then how can they disagree with the anathema?

We could probably get into a huge discussion about what the papal dogmas mean, but I think the easiest answer here is: Because Rome doesn't insist on agreement with the anathema.

BTW, I shouldn't have said "Papal Supremacy". I was being a little sloppy. I should have said "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction".

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.

So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

See my answers to witega.

[podkarpatska]

I think that the Melkites have attempted to define 'Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction' in a manner consistent with an eastern understanding of 'primus inter pares' but attempts to do so have been uniformly unsuccessful for well over one thousand years.

[Papist]

But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

Okay... but that actually raises more questions than it answers.
First off, the statement from Vatican 1, is basically an if/then structure with the 'then' being 'let him be anathema'. So if the Melkites agree with the first part (the if), but don't agree with the second, then doesn't that mean they disagree with the *statement*? (I mean, if I say, 'If lies on their job application, let him stoned to death'--and you agree that lieing is bad, but don't agree that those who do it should be stoned to death, aren't you disagreeing with the statement as whole)?

Yes, that makes sense ...

So if the Melkites don't agree with the anathema, there's still my question of how that can be acceptable to Rome (although other posters seem to be indicating that this is not the case, in which case only the other part of my question applies.

... but there's no anathema that says "If anyone (e.g. the Melkites) say that VI is not an ecumenical council, let them be anathema."

But further to that, (although in some ways a restatement of earlier confusion), if the Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy, then how can they disagree with the anathema?

We could probably get into a huge discussion about what the papal dogmas mean, but I think the easiest answer here is: Because Rome doesn't insist on agreement with the anathema.

BTW, I shouldn't have said "Papal Supremacy". I was being a little sloppy. I should have said "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction".

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.

So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

See my answers to witega.

I think these answers are dancing around the issue. The canon amathematizes anyone who disagrees.

[podkarpatska]

But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

Okay... but that actually raises more questions than it answers.
First off, the statement from Vatican 1, is basically an if/then structure with the 'then' being 'let him be anathema'. So if the Melkites agree with the first part (the if), but don't agree with the second, then doesn't that mean they disagree with the *statement*? (I mean, if I say, 'If lies on their job application, let him stoned to death'--and you agree that lieing is bad, but don't agree that those who do it should be stoned to death, aren't you disagreeing with the statement as whole)?

Yes, that makes sense ...

So if the Melkites don't agree with the anathema, there's still my question of how that can be acceptable to Rome (although other posters seem to be indicating that this is not the case, in which case only the other part of my question applies.

... but there's no anathema that says "If anyone (e.g. the Melkites) say that VI is not an ecumenical council, let them be anathema."

But further to that, (although in some ways a restatement of earlier confusion), if the Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy, then how can they disagree with the anathema?

We could probably get into a huge discussion about what the papal dogmas mean, but I think the easiest answer here is: Because Rome doesn't insist on agreement with the anathema.

BTW, I shouldn't have said "Papal Supremacy". I was being a little sloppy. I should have said "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction".

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.

So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

See my answers to witega.

I think these answers are dancing around the issue. The canon amathematizes anyone who disagrees.

Sadly, I have to concur with Papist here. I don't see how any of these ideas move the east any closer to the west and vice versa. Isn't it the same old, same old which has led to this most ancient of stalemates? The more I think about these things, I fear that the best we can accomplish is an agreement to disagree while reaffirming our basic respect for each other. These issues have certainly confounded greater minds than ours.

[Papist]

But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

Okay... but that actually raises more questions than it answers.
First off, the statement from Vatican 1, is basically an if/then structure with the 'then' being 'let him be anathema'. So if the Melkites agree with the first part (the if), but don't agree with the second, then doesn't that mean they disagree with the *statement*? (I mean, if I say, 'If lies on their job application, let him stoned to death'--and you agree that lieing is bad, but don't agree that those who do it should be stoned to death, aren't you disagreeing with the statement as whole)?

Yes, that makes sense ...

So if the Melkites don't agree with the anathema, there's still my question of how that can be acceptable to Rome (although other posters seem to be indicating that this is not the case, in which case only the other part of my question applies.

... but there's no anathema that says "If anyone (e.g. the Melkites) say that VI is not an ecumenical council, let them be anathema."

But further to that, (although in some ways a restatement of earlier confusion), if the Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy, then how can they disagree with the anathema?

We could probably get into a huge discussion about what the papal dogmas mean, but I think the easiest answer here is: Because Rome doesn't insist on agreement with the anathema.

BTW, I shouldn't have said "Papal Supremacy". I was being a little sloppy. I should have said "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction".

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.

So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

See my answers to witega.

I think these answers are dancing around the issue. The canon amathematizes anyone who disagrees.

Sadly, I have to concur with Papist here. I don't see how any of these ideas move the east any closer to the west and vice versa. Isn't it the same old, same old which has led to this most ancient of stalemates? The more I think about these things, I fear that the best we can accomplish is an agreement to disagree while reaffirming our basic respect for each other. These issues have certainly confounded greater minds than ours.

Agreed. And in spite of our differences, we can still love and pray for one another.

[dzheremi]

I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing, Podkarpatska. I mean, if you aren't going to budge and Rome isn't going to budge, isn't that the best of all possible outcomes? And indeed much better, if primarily in tone, than the days of "Contra Errores Graecorum" or similar.

[Peter J]

But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

Okay... but that actually raises more questions than it answers.
First off, the statement from Vatican 1, is basically an if/then structure with the 'then' being 'let him be anathema'. So if the Melkites agree with the first part (the if), but don't agree with the second, then doesn't that mean they disagree with the *statement*? (I mean, if I say, 'If lies on their job application, let him stoned to death'--and you agree that lieing is bad, but don't agree that those who do it should be stoned to death, aren't you disagreeing with the statement as whole)?

Yes, that makes sense ...

So if the Melkites don't agree with the anathema, there's still my question of how that can be acceptable to Rome (although other posters seem to be indicating that this is not the case, in which case only the other part of my question applies.

... but there's no anathema that says "If anyone (e.g. the Melkites) say that VI is not an ecumenical council, let them be anathema."

But further to that, (although in some ways a restatement of earlier confusion), if the Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy, then how can they disagree with the anathema?

We could probably get into a huge discussion about what the papal dogmas mean, but I think the easiest answer here is: Because Rome doesn't insist on agreement with the anathema.

BTW, I shouldn't have said "Papal Supremacy". I was being a little sloppy. I should have said "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction".

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.

So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

See my answers to witega.

I think these answers are dancing around the issue. The canon amathematizes anyone who disagrees.

This could -- perhaps -- be an explanation of why Rome doesn't support the Zoghby Initiative. Namely, from Rome's p.o.v., the initiative would allow for full communion between Catholics and some Christians who reject a defined dogma.

[podkarpatska]

I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing, Podkarpatska. I mean, if you aren't going to budge and Rome isn't going to budge, isn't that the best of all possible outcomes? And indeed much better, if primarily in tone, than the days of "Contra Errores Graecorum" or similar.

I agree and if we can get along in spite of our differences, we can confront real issues like the coming economic upheavals in Europe, the dearth of faith in the west (including the former Soviet bloc countries...the old east/west dichotomy is archaic in many ways...) and the rise of Islamic extremism with a stronger voice and moral presence.

[Peter J]

Another thought that may be helpful here: Is the Rome-Melkite relationship all that much different from the EO-OO relationship? In each case, both sides acknowledge each other as being orthodox, yet differ on how many ecumenical councils there have been.

[Iconodule]

Another thought that may be helpful here: Is the Rome-Melkite relationship all that much different from the EO-OO relationship?

Yes because the Melkites actually deny dogma proclaimed by the RC councils. The basis of the EO-OO unity movement is the supposition that there is no genuine doctrinal disagreement.

[Peter J]

Another thought that may be helpful here: Is the Rome-Melkite relationship all that much different from the EO-OO relationship?

Yes because the Melkites actually deny dogma proclaimed by the RC councils.

Actually, if you re-read the quote from Archbishop Zoghby you'll see that it doesn't contradict those teachings that Rome considers mandatory. It only denies that they are really dogmas, and that Vatican I was an ecumenical council:

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Why