www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Remaining Melkite?

Here is a statement from St. Maximos the Confessor:

"If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be . . . a heretic, it is certainly clear that everyone who condemns those who reject Pyrrhus condemns the See of Rome, that is he condemns the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also . . . It is unjust that anyone who has been condemned and expelled by the Apostolic See of Rome for his errors should be honored at all, until he has been received by her, returning to her and to the Lord Himself, by a devout confession of the orthodox faith, by which alone he can receive holiness . . . Let him hurry to satisfy in everything the See of Rome, for if Rome is satisfied all will agree that he is orthodox. For he only speaks foolishly who thinks he can persuade people like me, without first satisfying and begging the most blessed Pope of the Romans, the Apostolic See which has received universal and supreme authority and power of binding and loosing over all the Holy Churches of God in the whole world from the Incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by the holy synods in their canons and definitions. With it the Word who is above the powers of heaven binds and looses in heaven also. Anyone who thinks he can satisfy others without imploring pardon of the most blessed Pope of Rome, is acting like someone who is accused of murder or some other crime and does not prove his innocence to the lawfully appointed judge, but to uselessly demonstrate his innocence to private persons who have no power to acquit him" (Letter to the Priest Marinus of Cyprus, A.D. 641)

Now, in this quote, St. Maximos says that the Pope has supreme power of binding and loosing over all of the Churches. What are we to make of St. Maximos' view? Is St. Maximos stating a personal opinion or is stating what is taken for granted by the churches during this time?

I know that one difficulty is that the fathers of the Church say conflicting things about papal primacy and other issues as well. Also, patristic sayings are not equivalent to Ecumenical councils.

This is why I am taking my time in actually making a formal switch to Orthodoxy. Yet, it seems clear to me that one can never perform an exhaustive analysis of everything said and believed in the early Church. Given the impossibility of coming to a certain conclusion about the exact nature of papal authority in the early church, it would seem to me imprudent to hold up any strong claims to papal infallibility and supremacy of jurisdiction. Indeed, this was the problem that the minority party at Vatican I had with the conciliar definitions. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Since I've added this to the discussion, I want to add this link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on St. Maximos:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm

Something I didn't know is that St. Maximos defended Pope Honorius and claimed that the Pope never intended to teach Monothelitism, but only intended to say that Christ did not have a sinful, fleshly will. This is very interesting, I think. Peace in Christ,

Joe

JS,

I have read a number of posts in this thread and I am at a loss. If you feel in your heart that you cannot remain Melkite Greek Catholic and must become Orthodox then you should become Orthodox, no matter the social costs.

As for all of your various questions, it does not seem that you have really decided. Find an Orthodox priest known to give good spiritual direction to meet with and discuss whatever issues you have with him. If he discerns that you are called into Orthodoxy he will tell you. If he discerns that you are called to remain Greek Catholic he will tell you.

For most of us many of these questions are beyond what we can resolve. The Church of Christ is filled with sinful men and women. Our sins affect the unity of the Church in negative ways. Our job is to pray and to encourage those in authority to resolve the issues.

God bless you and your family on your journey!

Admin / John

John, thank you very much for your prayers and thoughts. It is likely that I will eventually become Orthodox, but I am enjoying not only the conversation on this thread, but the many other threads that I have been reading here. I hope that I am not causing any strife. It will never be my intention to do so. In Christ,

Joe

Shlomo Joe,

I agree with the Administrator. Do what is in your heart, but I would recommend that you go to confession. Many Melkites think like you do, some remain, others go over to Orthodoxy.

I would also ask you to look at the issue of re-union. In that how, you feel can be a gift, towards union. Maybe, you should look at how you do see the papacy? How does its role fit into the Universal Church? What actions can you take to make re-union a reality?

We from the Middle East, I think, have a special place in this issue. We have had to learn to communicate with each other, in order to survive. With that has come a move towards re-union among nearly all the Middle Eastern Churches. The issue for most is the role of the papacy. Maybe, this is God's way of asking you to take up this cross, and put to words what we have been working towards.

I hope this has helped.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Shlomo Joe,

I echo what Shlomo Administrator and Shlomo Yuhannon have said!

Of course, we can debate endlessly and that certainly can be fun.

But if we are trying to decide what is the "last straw" that breaks the camel's back and compels one to become Orthodoxy - we run the risk of basing a spiritual judgement on too rationalistic grounds.

I know EC's who have become Orthodox because they ultimately preferred the piety and spirituality of a given Orthodox jurisdiction.

There are Orthodox who have become EC, including a priest I know, because they felt communion with Rome put them into contact with a greater international family of Christians etc.

When I read Orthodox literature that can be termed "Anti-Catholic," the chances of me thinking about going over to Orthodoxy rise dramatically!

Fr. Meyendorff was never anti-Catholic and his work in the book on the papacy you cite isn't the "whole story" of his comments on Rome, nor is it the sum total of what historic Orthodoxy has thought of Rome (since 1054 AD).

For me, the Melkites represent the ideal of what it is to be Orthodox in communion with Rome. The Melkites are, in fact, what all EC's should be in this respect.

What is also to their great credit is their cultivation of close relationships with their Mother Orthodox Church - something that is truly to be green with envy about!

The issue of becoming Orthodox for me in my context has everything to do with Ukrainian ecclesial unity since our separations since the Union of Brest have been very negative ones indeed.

Ukr. Orthodox and Catholics have literally been "at war" with each other since that time and it is only in recent times that they've buried the hatchet. Of course, circumstances obliged them to be more ecumenical.

When Hetman Ivan Mazeppa was excommunicated by the ROC for siding with King Charles of Sweden (he was condemned "three times as much as Judas" according to the Russian Orthodox service of commemoration of the Battle of Poltava), the Ukrainian Orthodox, who had come under the Moscow Patriarchate, could not have panakhydas for their beloved national leader for independence.

They then went to Ukr. Greek-Catholic priests who held panakhydas for the Hetman on September 21-22, the evening of his death.

(Oops, that time is getting close, I better get started on organizing a memorial service for him at my parish! )

And then there was the issue of "potential treason" in the act of becoming Orthodox as a result of hardened positions on both sides and the like. Both of our Churches have our martyrs who were killed by the other side etc.

But you Melkites have none of that history with your mother Orthodox Church.

So while I don't really understand why you would want to become Orthodox (since you are already very much so!), I surmise it would be because you would want to share full communion with your Orthodox brethren.

And that's a relevant reason, to be sure. As for "social penalties" involved, what are you talking about? I can tell you about social penalties!

Cheers,

Alex

Brother Alex, you have given a very kind compliment. We all, especially myself, can greatly benefit from such a phronema or mindset.

Consider the reply of then Cardinal Ratzinger to the initiative. From the second half of the letter:

It seems to that in a nice way, he is shooting down both of the tenets put forward by Bishop Elias and approved by most of the other hierarchs. I'm sympathetic of course to their position, but I don't really understand it. Regardless, all 22 councils are binding as Bishop John said in his Q&A.

This is probably the relevant section

That's in the fourth chapter of Pastor Aeternus. It was re-affirmed at Vatican II in Lumen Gentium

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Catholics will always believe the pope is infallible, friend!

But not all Catholics will always want to listen to him, nevertheless!

Ultimately, I think that conversion to Orthodoxy is best that is undertaken for "high" reasons - to take up a more ascetical path.

For a Catholic to move to Orthodoxy because he or she thinks it is "easier" than remaining Catholic with the Pope and all his moral pronouncements - that is a bad reason.

Do you not agree?

Alex

Dear Laka,

You are welcome!

How is your year at Steubenville coming along thus far?

Alex

Shlomo Alex

That's what I thought!

Experience tells me this is true.

Absolutely. There can be other reasons though as you enumerated.

I've never met a convert who held such beliefs. It would be a bad reason though.

Absolutely.

Andrew

Just for the record, and I know no one is accusing me of this, my likely conversion to Orthodoxy is not about finding an easier path. For example, someone might conjecture that we wish to practice birth control and some Orthodox spiritual fathers permit this. This is not the case. We have no intention of practicing birth control nor doing anything that would be against any of the "controversial" moral teachings of the Catholic Church today. In fact, if anything I think that humanae vitae is too liberal in permitting natural family planning.

I only bring that up since the subject of converting for the sake of ease was mentioned. I know that for my wife and I, that will not be the case at all. For example, I have never heard any Melkite priest or Bishop say anything about not having marital relations on fasting days. I didn't even know that this was the standard canonical practice of the Orthodox until recently. Becoming Orthodox I suspect is going to involve more rigor, not less. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Andrew,

Based on the text of the then Cardinal Ratzinger, it seems to me to be the case that the general Melkite understanding of our relationship with the Pope and the nature of papal primacy is not acceptable. Thank you for posting this text. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I would NEVER make that charge to anyone, Friend!

All those who converted to Orthodoxy from Catholicism (that I know) did so to undertake a much more rigorous way of life, including those who joined ROCOR!

But sometimes one hears of EC's discussing the papacy as if it were a terrible albatross around one's neck with respect to artificial birth control, divorce and the like.

One Orthodox fellow I know is on his fourth marriage, all of which were sealed within the Orthodox church.

No one is generalizing about this, but if that is why someone will convert to another Church, whatever it is, - they can keep it.

Alex

Dear Andrew,

Up here, when a UGCCer is divorced and wants to remarry, he sometimes gets married a second time in a Ukr. Orthodox Church.

He and his new wife then return to a UGCC parish.

Not a good thing.

But, to be fair, they did not want to really become Orthodox after all.

Alex