Melkites are often Misunderstood

Statement about the Melkites issued by a large Catholic Broadcasting Network

Response by Father John Mowatt

This is one of the most disaffected groups among the Eastern Rite Catholics. Unlike other Byzantine Catholics, this group is headed by a patriarch who is accustomed to seeing himself as one of the equals among who the Pope of Rome (the Patriarch of the West) is agreed to be the first.

The write up in this section is,  without a doubt,  the most shameful of all.  Why are the Melkites described as "one of the most disaffected groups among the Eastern Rite Catholics."  The word "disaffected" as used here is very, very strong and is better used to describe tyrants, dictators, and dissenters.

As a Patriarch, the Chief Hierarch of the Melkite Church does hold a very special place in ecclesiastical rank.   Patriarchal rank and jurisdiction has always been reverenced in the East from Apostolic times when, in fact, the entire Catholic Church was ruled by a Pentarchy of five patriarchs, of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem in the East and of Rome in the West.   Rome was accorded the honor of "first among Equals" because it was the last episcopal See of the Apostle Peter. But, lest some forget, Peter was also, at an earlier date, Bishop of Antioch. Yes, the Melkite Patriarch does indeed hold a special place in the hierarchy of the Universal (Catholic Church).

The current patriarch prior has even permitted the marriage of ordained men, the tradition among them (as with the Orthodox) is to permit the ordaining of men who have already been married, although they favor a celibate episcopate. (The marriage of ordained clergy appears to have been a Protestant innovation in Christendom).

This write-up next contains the line "the current patriarch has even permitted the marriage of ordained men" which, more than anything, proves that the author of this "Focus" knows absolutely nothing of facts and seems to be completely ignorant of Eastern Christianity. In ALL Eastern Churches, married men can be (and are) ordained to the priesthood. This is true in the Orthodox Church as well as in the Catholic Church. In both Churches the candidate must be married before ordination to the deaconate. This section gets even more depressing when one reads, "although they favor a celibate episcopate: when, in fact, all the candidates for the episcopate, Orthodox as well as Catholic, are ALWAYS chosen from the monastic clergy and of course, all monks are celibate. This association of the episcopacy with monasticism is better maintained by the Orthodox them by many Eastern Rite Catholics. In the Orthodox practice, if a candidate for bishop is not of the monastic clergy, but is celibate, he is first given the monastic tonsure and then raised to the rank of "archimandrite" before the episcopal consecration. So, this is NOT the case of "favoring anything" . . . it is the canonical rule and practice of these Churches. The "Focus" gets worse, the next remark , which can only be classified as idiotic, states "The marriage of ordained clergy appears to have been a Protestant innovation in Christendom.)" Why have Protestant innovations got to do with Eastern Churches? Why was this even inserted here?

Rome understands her acquiescence in this tradition to apply only in the homeland of the Rite; most Eastern Rite Catholics rather expected to be allowed to carry all their traditions, including his one, to the lands to which they were immigrating.

Customs and traditions should be the care and concern of each Patriarchate.  Each patriarch, Eastern or Western, is custodian of the rites, customs and traditions of his own Particular Church and ought not to interfere with those used in other jurisdictions.  No one has any right to make an "acquiescence" concerning the liturgical or canonical usages of another's jurisdiction.  Each Patriarchatre (the Roman one included) has all it can do, in this day and age, to check the abuses which abound in its own Particular Church.

Disputes among the indigenous clergy and the immigrant Byzantine clergy have often resulted in whole parishes leaving the Catholic communion to be received back into Orthodox folds. (See the Comments for the Carpatho-Ruthenians below.)

The author of the "Focus" then goes on to write of "disputes among the indigenous clergy and the immigrant Byzantine Clergy" which have "often resulted in while parishes leaving Catholic communion to be received back (sic) into Orthodox folds."   Who are the "indigenous clergy"? Native American shamans?   Medicine Men?   Weren't the Latin Rite clergy also immigrants?  How could they possibly be "natives"?

Other sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, Pugatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extend remarriage after divorce; in short all the matters that remain primary points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics.

The author mentions "other sources of disagreement" but this seems to be a figment of a flawed imagination.   There are no disagreements in matters of faith and morals. How could there be?   There are, however, different legitimate ways of explanation or interpretation.

The terms of the original agreement are clear that agreement with Rome on these matters is expected.

Being a Patriarchal Church, the only one in the family of Catholic Byzantine Churches, the Melkite Church deserves better treatment by its Roman Rite Catholic co-religionists, especially in the Catholic Media of Television and in the field of higher Catholic education.