It's the Syriac Catholics, not the Chaldeans, who have the third Catholic patriarchate of Antioch. And then, apart from the Orthodox patriarchate, there is the fifth Antiochian patriarchate, that of the Syriac Orthodox (Jacobite).
"Catholic ecumenists, I should point out, often misconstrue the nature of the Orthodox distrust of their good will. It is not simply the case that the Orthodox are so fissiparous and jealous of their autonomy that the Petrine office appears to them a dangerous principle of homogeneity, to which their fractious Eastern wills cannot submit. Rather, it more often than not appears to be a dangerous principle of plurality. After all, under the capacious canopy of the papal office, so many disparate things find common shelter. An obvious example: three men are called Patriarch of Antioch in the Roman communion (Melkite, Maronite, and East Syrian)—which suggests that the very title of patriarch, even as regards an apostolic see, is merely honorific, because the only unique patriarchal office is the pope’s. To Orthodox Christians it often appears as if, from the Catholic side, so long as the pope’s supremacy is acknowledged, all else is irrelevant ornament. Which yields the sad irony that the more the Catholic Church strives to accommodate Orthodox concerns, the more disposed many Orthodox are to see in this merely the advance embassy of an omnivorous ecclesial empire... And the very notion that the pope could possibly possess the authority to ‘appoint’ a patriarch in another see is an historical and theological nonsense for which the Orthodox should rightly have no patience whatsoever."
I was as surprised by the Patriarch's words as you were. The Zoghby Initiative is foundational to a great number of Melkites' self-conception. I myself worshiped with the Melkites for years and eventually even transferred my ascription from the Latin Church to the Melkite Church. It was among the Melkites that I was first introduced to the treasures of the Byzantine Liturgy and the Orthodox Church. The tensions and self-contradictions of their situation, however, were always a concern to me. Rome has certain expectations of its faithful and it makes little sense to allow the Melkites a kind of exemption from Latin dogma. Papal Supremacy, as defined at V1, is a dogmatically proclaimed truth that Catholics can no more reject than the solemn proclamations of V2, Trent, or Chalcedon. Finding myself more in agreement with the Orthodox, I eventually made the decision (with my family) to become Orthodox. In a way, the Patriarch's words may be a blessing of sorts. The Zoghby Initiative was never going to work. You can't live on a bridge. Bridges are for crossing. The Melkites have to decide which side of the river they want to live on.
I'm less concerned that the EP will attempt some sort of corporate reunion with Rome. While there are those under the EP who might welcome such a development, the Athonites would riot. I think much of the Greek Church (in Greece) would as well. The Antiochians themselves have generally been more aligned with the slavic churches, having chafed under Greek rule and owing the restoration of their autocephaly to Russian force of arms. In the reunion scenario you describe, I think the EP would quickly find himself in a rump church outside of the broader Orthodox communion. I think he knows that too.
"Solemn for V2?" That Council is not on the same level as the other two you mentioned. Even Paul VI sad there is no anathema or declarations of dogma. It is a synod at best, with modernism flowing from its desire to try and appease other faith groups.
Chalcedon and Trent defined dogma: V2 is weaponizex ambiguity, which many modernists lean on entirely too often.
The Patriarch is right. It's nice ro see clarity from a head of Parr of the Catholic Church, since the Vatican us becoming less and less Catholic these days. The beauty of Christ's Church is indefectability, and now since Rome is losing the faith, the East is there to help restore air unto the collapsed lung (especially since the NO is arguably a transplant/virus for the Western lung).
Great informative article, Michael! All I know is that Christ prayed for one church on the eve of his sacrifice for us and I know that he will make it happen in some way. This is going to be extremely interesting to watch.
As a quick note — Pope Vigilius was not condemned as a heretic at the Fifth Council (the only Pope to hold that dishonor, to my knowledge, is Pope Honorius, who was anathematized at the Sixth Council as a heresiarch). Patriarch Peter (tactfully blaming all errors on the chartophylax, whose duties are described in the fifth footnote) notes that there was a small breach in communion during this time that was healed, and that the Pope of Rome at the time, Pope St. Agatho, was a good and holy man, certainly commemorated.
It would be more accurate to state that Russian civilization came out of Ukraine rather than the other way around. And the decision to join with Rome had more to do with a true desire to promote one Catholic Church than the politics that might have been present. I would note that the Ukrainian bishop who spearheaded the movement back to Rome paid for it with his life.
St Josephat. Yes, we should ask his intercession for true reunification of the Church. The Church is above politics, though unfortunately many of both sides in the schism are not.
It is interesting that even an affable Western Orthodoxer goes straight for the Putinesque language. (Not meant as rude as it sounds; simply sad that this becomes so easily bound up with politics.)
I don't think it's quite right to say to say that "in 2021 the Vatican solemnly declared that same-sex couples could not receive special blessings in the Catholic Church. Then, just two years later, Francis signed Fiducia Supplicans authorizing blessings for same-sex couples." In fact, the first document specified that 'unions' could not be blessed, whereas the second authorized blessings for 'couples'. The distinction seems sophistical, but in any case some attempt was made at continuity...
Personally, I can’t keep giving Francis credit for self-evidently sophistical distinctions. He’s taking a wee on our shoes and we’re supposed to convince ourselves it’s raining. Sorry, I played that game for a long time but I can’t do it anymore.
Agreed. For being one for "dialogue," he has not even decanter in the midst of the Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadris II breaking off with him because of FS. What a blow, as the Coptics were on the verge of being another Uniate.
The Melkite patriarch’s statement comes as a blow to those of us who want only to be fully Orthodox but can’t (by advice of local Eastern Orthodox Orthodox priests) formally join the Orthodox Church because of family ties and young children and the possibility that leaving communion with them would cause family break-up. Also, I wonder how the Patriarch can separate dogma and liturgy— as he knows, they go together as we believe what and how we pray.
Was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's letter in 1997 "sniffy"? It seems to me well thought out and rational as were most of his writings,
This was particularly apt:
"As to experiences of a theological nature, it is necessary to labour patiently and prudently, without precipitation, in order to help both parties to travel along the same road.
The first level in this sharing concerns the language and the categories employed in the dialogue: one must be very careful that the use of the same word or the same concept is not used to express different points of view and interpretations of a historical and doctrinal nature, nor lends itself to some kind of oversimplification."
And one can't really dispute this:
"On the question of communion with the Bishops of Rome, we know that the doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has experienced a development over time within the framework of the explanation of the Church's faith, and it has to be retained in its entirety, which means from its origins to our day. One only has to think about what the first Vatican Council affirmed and what Vatican Council II declared, particularly in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium (Num. 22 and 23), and in the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio (Number 2).
As to the modalities for exercising the Petrine ministry in our time, a question which is distinct from the doctrinal aspect, it is true that the Holy Father has recently desired to remind us how "we may seek--together, of course--the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned" (Ut unum sint, 95); however, if it is legitimate to also deal with this on a local level, it is also a duty to do this always in harmony with a vision of the universal Church. Touching this matter, it is appropriate to be reminded that in any case, "The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is--in God's plan--an essential requisite of full and visible communion" (Ut unum sint, 97)."
Are you suggesting that Eastern Catholics changing their liturgical customs would be more of an “abandonment of the faith,” than if they were to embrace actual heresy and schism in the Eastern Orthodox Church?
That's a highly reductive, polemical reading of my article. It happens to be my opinion, if you want to know, but that's not the point I'm trying to make in the article. The point of my article is that the contrast between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity is GROWING, despite the flourishing of "ecumenical dialogues" between Rome and Constantinople. As the Melkite Patriarch says, the Zoghby Initiative—being "Orthodox in communion with Rome"—is becoming less tenable even as certain Orthodox rush towards communion with Rome.
By the bye, they wouldn't be "Eastern Catholics" if they adopted the Roman Rite.
My only point is, if you believe liturgical custom is more important than faith, then you've fallen into the very error our Lord condemned the Pharisees for. The outward expression of the faith (which is mutable), while incredibly important, is not of the essence of the Church (which is immutable). If our Lord established the papal office as the head of His Church until the end of time, as the Eastern bishops of the first millennium agreed that He did (cf. Hormisdas' formula; Maximus and Stephen of Dor at Lateran 649; Agatho's acceptance at Const. 681; Hadrian I's acceptance at Nicaea 787; Theodore the Studite; Theodore Abu Qurrah), then it can't be done away with, not even for the sake of liturgical custom/culture.
I would actually think the Eastern Orthodox would take it as a great insult if you told them they're completely justified in rejecting the apostolic faith for the sake of preserving their culture. It would essentially be treating them as children who need to be placated and walked on egg-shells around, rather than serious interlocutors in a genuine dispute over what the apostolic faith is.
You're "only" trying to start a debate over papal supremacy and papal infallibility, which I'm not interested in having.
Referring to papalism as "the Apostolic Faith" is question-begging, though I agree with you on one point: in order to be a faithful Roman Catholic, one must accept—as you accept, and as the Melkite patriarch implicitly affirmed in his speech—that the Pope has absolute authority over every aspect of the Roman Catholic Church: liturgical, theological, and administrative.
My point is that Orthodox Christians should be aware of this fact. The Vatican has made noises about "synodality" but (as you correctly point out) the Pope remains an absolute monarch—and what's more, according to Vatican I (and your honorable self), he always has been and always will be.
In other words, Orthodox Christians should not think that Roman dogma has changed or "evolved" since 1869. If Francis chooses to implement a policy of synodality, it is simply that: a policy. He may choose to delegate authority, but it remains his choice; he may just as easily choose to re-collect all authority into the papacy, as Pius IX did. "I am Tradition!" Pius declared; "I am the Church!"
So, where exactly do you perceive us as disagreeing?
A great write up and assessment. I wish things didn't have to be so messy with regards to Church history, but we are, after all, still fallen humans prone to pride, ulterior motives and just plain stupidity. Lord have mercy! I would love to see a reunion between the Orthodox and Catholic Church, as long as it's one based on truth and fidelity to Holy Tradition. However, at least from my position as an Orthodox Christian, we've never been further apart and reunion never more unlikely. I could be wrong. I hope I am.
This is not an official statement by the Synod, so I won't completely give up on the Melkites. However, if the rest of the Melkite bishops are beginning to move towards this direction, I will be deeply concerned.
Orthodox dialogue towards restoration of communion with anybody is going to be quite difficult, as our own communion is half-unraveled! Both Moscow and Constantinople are slowly going mad; may God preserve us.
It's the Syriac Catholics, not the Chaldeans, who have the third Catholic patriarchate of Antioch. And then, apart from the Orthodox patriarchate, there is the fifth Antiochian patriarchate, that of the Syriac Orthodox (Jacobite).
"Catholic ecumenists, I should point out, often misconstrue the nature of the Orthodox distrust of their good will. It is not simply the case that the Orthodox are so fissiparous and jealous of their autonomy that the Petrine office appears to them a dangerous principle of homogeneity, to which their fractious Eastern wills cannot submit. Rather, it more often than not appears to be a dangerous principle of plurality. After all, under the capacious canopy of the papal office, so many disparate things find common shelter. An obvious example: three men are called Patriarch of Antioch in the Roman communion (Melkite, Maronite, and East Syrian)—which suggests that the very title of patriarch, even as regards an apostolic see, is merely honorific, because the only unique patriarchal office is the pope’s. To Orthodox Christians it often appears as if, from the Catholic side, so long as the pope’s supremacy is acknowledged, all else is irrelevant ornament. Which yields the sad irony that the more the Catholic Church strives to accommodate Orthodox concerns, the more disposed many Orthodox are to see in this merely the advance embassy of an omnivorous ecclesial empire... And the very notion that the pope could possibly possess the authority to ‘appoint’ a patriarch in another see is an historical and theological nonsense for which the Orthodox should rightly have no patience whatsoever."
— David Bentley Hart, "The Myth of Schism"
Hart's wrong. The third Catholic patriarch of Antioch is West Syrian not East Syrian (Chaldean).
Mea culpa! Thanks for the clarification.
I was as surprised by the Patriarch's words as you were. The Zoghby Initiative is foundational to a great number of Melkites' self-conception. I myself worshiped with the Melkites for years and eventually even transferred my ascription from the Latin Church to the Melkite Church. It was among the Melkites that I was first introduced to the treasures of the Byzantine Liturgy and the Orthodox Church. The tensions and self-contradictions of their situation, however, were always a concern to me. Rome has certain expectations of its faithful and it makes little sense to allow the Melkites a kind of exemption from Latin dogma. Papal Supremacy, as defined at V1, is a dogmatically proclaimed truth that Catholics can no more reject than the solemn proclamations of V2, Trent, or Chalcedon. Finding myself more in agreement with the Orthodox, I eventually made the decision (with my family) to become Orthodox. In a way, the Patriarch's words may be a blessing of sorts. The Zoghby Initiative was never going to work. You can't live on a bridge. Bridges are for crossing. The Melkites have to decide which side of the river they want to live on.
I'm less concerned that the EP will attempt some sort of corporate reunion with Rome. While there are those under the EP who might welcome such a development, the Athonites would riot. I think much of the Greek Church (in Greece) would as well. The Antiochians themselves have generally been more aligned with the slavic churches, having chafed under Greek rule and owing the restoration of their autocephaly to Russian force of arms. In the reunion scenario you describe, I think the EP would quickly find himself in a rump church outside of the broader Orthodox communion. I think he knows that too.
"Solemn for V2?" That Council is not on the same level as the other two you mentioned. Even Paul VI sad there is no anathema or declarations of dogma. It is a synod at best, with modernism flowing from its desire to try and appease other faith groups.
Chalcedon and Trent defined dogma: V2 is weaponizex ambiguity, which many modernists lean on entirely too often.
The Patriarch is right. It's nice ro see clarity from a head of Parr of the Catholic Church, since the Vatican us becoming less and less Catholic these days. The beauty of Christ's Church is indefectability, and now since Rome is losing the faith, the East is there to help restore air unto the collapsed lung (especially since the NO is arguably a transplant/virus for the Western lung).
Great informative article, Michael! All I know is that Christ prayed for one church on the eve of his sacrifice for us and I know that he will make it happen in some way. This is going to be extremely interesting to watch.
As a quick note — Pope Vigilius was not condemned as a heretic at the Fifth Council (the only Pope to hold that dishonor, to my knowledge, is Pope Honorius, who was anathematized at the Sixth Council as a heresiarch). Patriarch Peter (tactfully blaming all errors on the chartophylax, whose duties are described in the fifth footnote) notes that there was a small breach in communion during this time that was healed, and that the Pope of Rome at the time, Pope St. Agatho, was a good and holy man, certainly commemorated.
It would be more accurate to state that Russian civilization came out of Ukraine rather than the other way around. And the decision to join with Rome had more to do with a true desire to promote one Catholic Church than the politics that might have been present. I would note that the Ukrainian bishop who spearheaded the movement back to Rome paid for it with his life.
St Josephat. Yes, we should ask his intercession for true reunification of the Church. The Church is above politics, though unfortunately many of both sides in the schism are not.
It is interesting that even an affable Western Orthodoxer goes straight for the Putinesque language. (Not meant as rude as it sounds; simply sad that this becomes so easily bound up with politics.)
I don't think it's quite right to say to say that "in 2021 the Vatican solemnly declared that same-sex couples could not receive special blessings in the Catholic Church. Then, just two years later, Francis signed Fiducia Supplicans authorizing blessings for same-sex couples." In fact, the first document specified that 'unions' could not be blessed, whereas the second authorized blessings for 'couples'. The distinction seems sophistical, but in any case some attempt was made at continuity...
Personally, I can’t keep giving Francis credit for self-evidently sophistical distinctions. He’s taking a wee on our shoes and we’re supposed to convince ourselves it’s raining. Sorry, I played that game for a long time but I can’t do it anymore.
Did you become Orthodox at some point and I missed it?
Agreed. For being one for "dialogue," he has not even decanter in the midst of the Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadris II breaking off with him because of FS. What a blow, as the Coptics were on the verge of being another Uniate.
The Melkite patriarch’s statement comes as a blow to those of us who want only to be fully Orthodox but can’t (by advice of local Eastern Orthodox Orthodox priests) formally join the Orthodox Church because of family ties and young children and the possibility that leaving communion with them would cause family break-up. Also, I wonder how the Patriarch can separate dogma and liturgy— as he knows, they go together as we believe what and how we pray.
That is no reason not to become Orthodox. Find a priest that will allow you into the body of Christ.
You hit a live wire again! So what DO you think is a viable way to restore unity between East and West then?
If one thinks the plurality-within-unity model (so far) doesn’t seem to be working, then what is the better way?
Was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's letter in 1997 "sniffy"? It seems to me well thought out and rational as were most of his writings,
This was particularly apt:
"As to experiences of a theological nature, it is necessary to labour patiently and prudently, without precipitation, in order to help both parties to travel along the same road.
The first level in this sharing concerns the language and the categories employed in the dialogue: one must be very careful that the use of the same word or the same concept is not used to express different points of view and interpretations of a historical and doctrinal nature, nor lends itself to some kind of oversimplification."
And one can't really dispute this:
"On the question of communion with the Bishops of Rome, we know that the doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has experienced a development over time within the framework of the explanation of the Church's faith, and it has to be retained in its entirety, which means from its origins to our day. One only has to think about what the first Vatican Council affirmed and what Vatican Council II declared, particularly in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium (Num. 22 and 23), and in the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio (Number 2).
As to the modalities for exercising the Petrine ministry in our time, a question which is distinct from the doctrinal aspect, it is true that the Holy Father has recently desired to remind us how "we may seek--together, of course--the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned" (Ut unum sint, 95); however, if it is legitimate to also deal with this on a local level, it is also a duty to do this always in harmony with a vision of the universal Church. Touching this matter, it is appropriate to be reminded that in any case, "The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is--in God's plan--an essential requisite of full and visible communion" (Ut unum sint, 97)."
Are you suggesting that Eastern Catholics changing their liturgical customs would be more of an “abandonment of the faith,” than if they were to embrace actual heresy and schism in the Eastern Orthodox Church?
That's a highly reductive, polemical reading of my article. It happens to be my opinion, if you want to know, but that's not the point I'm trying to make in the article. The point of my article is that the contrast between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity is GROWING, despite the flourishing of "ecumenical dialogues" between Rome and Constantinople. As the Melkite Patriarch says, the Zoghby Initiative—being "Orthodox in communion with Rome"—is becoming less tenable even as certain Orthodox rush towards communion with Rome.
By the bye, they wouldn't be "Eastern Catholics" if they adopted the Roman Rite.
My only point is, if you believe liturgical custom is more important than faith, then you've fallen into the very error our Lord condemned the Pharisees for. The outward expression of the faith (which is mutable), while incredibly important, is not of the essence of the Church (which is immutable). If our Lord established the papal office as the head of His Church until the end of time, as the Eastern bishops of the first millennium agreed that He did (cf. Hormisdas' formula; Maximus and Stephen of Dor at Lateran 649; Agatho's acceptance at Const. 681; Hadrian I's acceptance at Nicaea 787; Theodore the Studite; Theodore Abu Qurrah), then it can't be done away with, not even for the sake of liturgical custom/culture.
I would actually think the Eastern Orthodox would take it as a great insult if you told them they're completely justified in rejecting the apostolic faith for the sake of preserving their culture. It would essentially be treating them as children who need to be placated and walked on egg-shells around, rather than serious interlocutors in a genuine dispute over what the apostolic faith is.
You're "only" trying to start a debate over papal supremacy and papal infallibility, which I'm not interested in having.
Referring to papalism as "the Apostolic Faith" is question-begging, though I agree with you on one point: in order to be a faithful Roman Catholic, one must accept—as you accept, and as the Melkite patriarch implicitly affirmed in his speech—that the Pope has absolute authority over every aspect of the Roman Catholic Church: liturgical, theological, and administrative.
My point is that Orthodox Christians should be aware of this fact. The Vatican has made noises about "synodality" but (as you correctly point out) the Pope remains an absolute monarch—and what's more, according to Vatican I (and your honorable self), he always has been and always will be.
In other words, Orthodox Christians should not think that Roman dogma has changed or "evolved" since 1869. If Francis chooses to implement a policy of synodality, it is simply that: a policy. He may choose to delegate authority, but it remains his choice; he may just as easily choose to re-collect all authority into the papacy, as Pius IX did. "I am Tradition!" Pius declared; "I am the Church!"
So, where exactly do you perceive us as disagreeing?
My initial comment was simply a clarifying one.
A great write up and assessment. I wish things didn't have to be so messy with regards to Church history, but we are, after all, still fallen humans prone to pride, ulterior motives and just plain stupidity. Lord have mercy! I would love to see a reunion between the Orthodox and Catholic Church, as long as it's one based on truth and fidelity to Holy Tradition. However, at least from my position as an Orthodox Christian, we've never been further apart and reunion never more unlikely. I could be wrong. I hope I am.
This is not an official statement by the Synod, so I won't completely give up on the Melkites. However, if the rest of the Melkite bishops are beginning to move towards this direction, I will be deeply concerned.
Orthodox dialogue towards restoration of communion with anybody is going to be quite difficult, as our own communion is half-unraveled! Both Moscow and Constantinople are slowly going mad; may God preserve us.
The good news is that warring patriarchs and ascendent heresies are the norm in church history!
I always hear this sentiment and tend to agree, but struggle with how is that good news?
Because it doesn’t affect our ability to become saints. It is unfortunate, but not unprecedented.
Well then, wouldn't that apply to unwise actions and weak popes in the Catholic Church as well?
Are you Orthodox now?
Canonically Roman Catholic and drive 100 miles each way to a Melkite church.
And dogmatically?
Which is why I am Old Calendar Genuine Orthodox Greek…
Thank you my friend! As always I'm grateful for your kind words.