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. -Elias Zoghby (Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop).

---------------------------------------------
Dear Friends,

My first question is directed primarily towards my Eastern Catholic brethren:

From your perspective, what is wrong with this statement of belief? What is it lacking? Or, do you yourselves affirm it? Personally, I find it quite fitting and am inclined to embrace it.

Secondly, I have a question for my Eastern Orthodox brethren:

What more would you say an Eastern Christian must affirm inorder to be considered "Orthodox" and allowed to restore Communion with the Orthodox Churches?

for full context see:
http://www.melkite.org/sa3.htm

Dear Ghazarus,

As an Orthodox Christian (not in communion with Rome), I would hope for an affirmation of conciliarity as a universal principle of our (Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic) Church, which is a fundamental part of her ecclesiology. All of the synods and patriarchs of the various Orthodox jurisdictions affirm conciliarity.

The Roman synod is not conciliar, except, perhaps, in the selection of the Popes. Can the brother bishops challenge, and in extreme cases, remove a Roman Pontiff on account of doctrinal error or personal scandal? Do the bishops have sovereignty to organize the work in their dioceses, all be it subject to subsequent challenge in council/synod by their brother bishops?

If the answers are no, then I don't see how one could claim to be in communion with such and simultaneously part of the Orthodox Church.

Did not Paul challenge Peter to his face? Did Peter not back down as a result of his brother's legitimate challenge? The apostles were conciliar. Their Church is conciliar.

Conciliarity, ecclesiology, and catholicity are intimately intertwined, or at least, they ought to be.

With love in Christ.

All, Eastern Orthodox and Western catholics have sometimes held the two extreme views, the ultra-conciliarity and the ultra-papism, and Eastern Catholics are probably there in the middle. And many orthodox and Catholcis of the Western Church too.

The ultra-conciliar way doesn't seem to work so fine, this has become evident after seeing the canonical problem of Orthodoxy nowadays. It is certainly true that the Church is counciliar but there's an authority and a hierarchy. Possitions of ultra-conciliarists sometimes lead to anarchy, and more when it is influenced by nationalism, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is no longer allowed to act in order to preserve counciliar unity within the Orthodox Communion, and Patriarchs have become prisioners of the Synods.

On the other side the traditional Roman way, the all-powerful papacy of the old times did not prevent the expansion of Protestantism in the West, Popes through history were not immune against the influence of civil powers and Empires.

(maybe a third way is needed)

Do the bishops have sovereignty to organize the work in their dioceses, all be it subject to subsequent challenge in council/synod by their brother bishops?

Well, I have seen that Roman Catholics now seem to have problems that are similar to those of the Orhodox or probably worse (but the fact that they have the Pope as their head doesn't allow them to be "officially" divided). Rome has lost control over its bishops (it is no secret that individual bishops in many places are very autonomous), the Episcopal Conferences
that were born as a kind of Counciliarity have had troubles, as if the western bishops were not so prepared to collegiality.

The simple answer is an Eastern Christian would have to affirm what the Orthodox priest receiving him into Orthodoxy asks him to affirm. It is a personal, spiritual matter foremost, not a theology quiz.

Axios

Did he have the authority to "remove" Peter?

Dear Andrew,

I think I understand your point, but I'm having a hard time seeing why #1 and #2 wouldn't satisfy this question in your mind. If you can elaborate, please do.

respectfully,
Wm. DerGhazarian

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him Forever!

Dear Ghazarus,

Would it be appropiate for Eastern Catholics to buy Orthodox (out of union with Rome) icons, books, and the like? Thanks

A sinner,

Adam

Theosis,

I know I'm not Ghazar, but my personal opinion is that, if I were interested in buying these things, I would first try to find a good Eastern Catholic source so as to provide my Church with the profits. However, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to buy religious paraphanalia from Orthodox providers.

Logos Teen

Dear djs and Ghazarus,

May Paul remove Peter? Ah, but djs, that is the very beauty of conciliarity! Of course Paul may not remove Peter! But all of the apostles gathered together? Well now? Were they not collectively told by the Lord that the Church would be built upon them (their confession of faith)? Whatever they bind or loose on earth.....

So, Ghazarus, that's where I'm focusing this week: on conciliarity and what that says about ecclesiology and how ecclesiology can keep brothers apart at the chalice. Trust me, I'm not happy about it. But as dear Alex said in another context, it's "the Rome thingy."

In other words, the above posted #2 is history only. There is a new #2 since the institution of Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. And this new, real #2 and the unchanging #1 are mutually exclusive.

Let's not get too upset over it, though. It's not the end of the world or the primary basis upon which we build our salvation. It's also not "a personal, spiritual matter" according to the whims of the participants on a website, local presbyters, or even any one local bishop. It's a matter to be taken up by the synods/councils, and ultimately, by an ecumenical one. In the meantime, we'll survive.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Adam,

It's fine to buy icons and books from any Orthodox bookseller or shop!

It is up to you if you wish to buy such from an Orthodox jurisdiction that may be a bit too, shall we say, "sensitive about Catholicism."

But show me an Orthodox jurisdiction that isn't!

Alex

Dear Ghazar,

Excellent question!

I think there is no problem with point one - we've demonstrated it here often enough on the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Filioque etc.

The way that the second point, primacy of honour, is worded assumes a bit too much about the pre-Schism role of the papacy.

If by "primacy of honour" we mean that the Eastern Churches are saying to Rome, "Hey, that tiara looks great on you, Elder Brother" as they wave to him from afar and behind a jurisdictional fence, then that is simply a reductionist view of the papacy in the first thousand years of the undivided Church.

And it doesn't exist among the Orthodox Churches either, in the sense that there is no jurisdictional control over the Churches - the EP can and has excommunicated Patriarchs for breaking the canonical rules, as he did with the Jerusalem Patriarch.

And Rome has indeed exercised a "universal jurisdiction" over the East when the situation warranted - ie. times of crisis, theologians appealing to it etc.

Conciliarity is a great principle. But how it is to work is the fodder for a future Union Council in which both Rome and Orthodoxy should participate to hammer out the details.

There are Orthodox who are in favour of as little jurisdictional influence of Rome as possible - others, and I've met them, who want full Roman jurisdiction over Orthodoxy to "bring it under control."

I like John Meyendorff's vision of a future Union Council in which the 8th Orthodox Local Council can be formally proclaimed the "8th Ecumenical Council" and the 9th could be the Union Council itself.

Meyendorff suggested that even the papal doctrines COULD be accepted with some modifications by the East if they were RE-PRESENTED at such a Council, discussed and approved by that Council.

There are problems with BOTH the current way the papacy is exercised AND with Orthodox conciliarity.

The Melkite Archbishop was well-meaning, but like a number of "Orthodox in communion with Rome" types, hopelessly unrealistic . . .

Alex

I think most people here know my take on this as I have posted it many times.

That being said, I think the way Ghazarus has posted it, quick and to the point.

In today’s world, using today’s definitions, his numbers 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.

David

Dear David,

Why?

Or are you getting to be like Fr. Elias, saying, "I don't agree" and then walking away without an explanation?

(If either of you want more smileys, let me know!)

Alex

Dear David,

I know some Anglicans who believe in all that Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. Lovely people, but still Anglicans.

S Bogom -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Being an active member of a monarchist league, I was interviewed on television once regarding what the press called a bid by HRH Prince Charles to "disestablish" the Church of England.

One question compared him to King Henry VIII.

I told the journalist that that was nonsense since, even if Charles disestablished the Anglican Church, "He would still be an Anglican, Heaven help him . . ."

It brought quite a laugh . . .

But I understand HRH Prince Charles might even be a secret catechumen of the Orthodox Church?

Any news on that?

Alex