What's going on with the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Russian Patriarch Kirill?

[Bizzlebin]

It's been done ad nauseam, most prominently by Jean-Claude Larchet. There's also been quite a lot written about it in Romanian.

I've also done some long-running experiments with the personalist theology, starting over 10 years ago, and found it to be lacking. For example, my old website (which I've taken down much of) was basically an attempt to apply Met John Zizioulas's person-centric theology to web design; my conclusion is that it creates some serious Christological and Trinitarian issues, to say nothing of the practical problems. But I'm not familiar with more technical and systematic treatments; do you have an English-language link for any of Jean-Claude Larchet's works on the topic?

 

[Samn!]

But I'm not familiar with more technical and systematic treatments; do you have an English-language link for any of Jean-Claude Larchet's works on the topic?

I don't believe any of his book Personne et nature has been translated into English. Larchet's main criticism though, is that Zizioulas' understanding of the concept of nature is completely patristically (and liturgically) illiterate and if taken seriously would wreck our Christology and Trinitarian theology. Zizioulas has even said in print, in a response to Larchet, that St Maximus taught that will corresponds in person, so he basically beclowned himself in that interaction to a point where he can't be taken seriously anymore.

 

[rakovsky]

What are the effects of sacraments performed jointly between EOs and schismatics like consecration of Holy Oil?

It seems that there is a range of opinion on the status of heterodox and schismatic sacraments. On one end, some EOs consider heterodox/schismatic sacraments like baptism to be valid, whereas at the opposite end there are EOs who consider those sacraments to be "poison." What is the status of those sacraments if they are performed and consecrated jointly by canonical EOs and by heterodox/schismatics?

"Constantinople expects Churches to serve with schismatics in Holy Week Chrism service"

Constantinople expects Churches to serve with schismatics in Holy Week Chrism service

Holy Chrism will be made and consecrated at the Phanar later this year, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople aims to use the sacred rite as an occasion to draw the Local Churches into concelebrating with the Ukrainian schismatics.

orthochristian.com

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

It seems that there is a range of opinion on the status of heterodox and schismatic sacraments. On one end, some EOs consider heterodox/schismatic sacraments like baptism to be valid, whereas at the opposite end there are EOs who consider those sacraments to be "poison."

If the schismatic sacraments are valid, and schismatics receive them, they receive them unto damnation. If they are not valid, then they are a mockery. Either way, the Orthodox perspective is that sacraments outside the Church are poison and do not save.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

@rakovsky
Not sure what your reaction is a frowning face to the patristic teaching. Any bolding is mine.

"Just as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him. "- St. Augustine, on Baptism against the Donatists.

We command that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who receives the baptism, or the sacrifice of heretics, be deprived: For what agreement is there between Christ and Belial? Or what part has a believer with an infidel? - Apostolic Canon 46

Anyone who receives the sacrament of Baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole Sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the Sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church. He must, therefore, return to the Church, not to that he might receive again the sacrament of Baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the Sacrament of Baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church.”- St. Fulgebtius of Ruspe

"Certainly a heretic has the baptism of Christ but, because he is outside the unity of the faith, it produces nothing for him."St. Isidore of Seville

Canon 57 of Carthage: For in coming to faith they thought the true Church to be their own and there they believed in Christ, and received the sacraments of the Trinity. And that all these sacraments are altogether true and holy and divine is most certain, and in them the whole hope of the soul is placed, although the presumptuous audacity of heretics, taking to itself the name of the truth, dares to administer them. They are but one after all, as the blessed Apostle tells us, saying: One God, one faith, one baptism, and it is not lawful to reiterate what once only ought to be administered. Those having been baptized having anathematized their error may be received by the imposition of the hand into the one Church, the pillar as it is called, and the one mother of all Christians, where all these Sacraments are received unto salvation and everlasting life; even the same sacraments which obtain for those persevering in heresy the heavy penalty of damnation."

 

[Bizzlebin]

"Just as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him. "- St. Augustine, on Baptism against the Donatists.

I think the St Augustine quote is really the succinct statement of the Orthodox position here, and it was not entirely clear that what you previously wrote reflected that understanding. It is better not to think in terms of valid and invalid (unless we're talking canon law, but "canonical" and "Church" are 2 separate categories), but in terms of grace completing what we do, whether we think we do it in union or know we do it in schism. As St Augustine correctly notes, the sacraments were already real ("already in him"—what is "outside the Church" is rather beyond our comprehension and is not an accusation that we should toss around), so that is no obstacle to Jesus Christ or some overriding force which is more powerful(!) than Him.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

I think the St Augustine quote is really the succinct statement of the Orthodox position here, and it was not entirely clear that what you previously wrote reflected that understanding. It is better not to think in terms of valid and invalid (unless we're talking canon law, but "canonical" and "Church" are 2 separate categories), but in terms of grace completing what we do, whether we think we do it in union or know we do it in schism. As St Augustine correctly notes, the sacraments were already real ("already in him"—what is "outside the Church" is rather beyond our comprehension and is not an accusation that we should toss around), so that is no obstacle to Jesus Christ or some overriding force which is more powerful(!) than Him.

That's what valid or invalid means though. If it's invalid, baptism is just a bath or the eucharist is just bread and wine. An example of this would be a Mormon baptism and communion (which is of bread and water). It is not a "real" sacrament but a mockery of it. It is completely invalid.

If it's valid, that means grace completes the action i.e is real. I believe this is definitely a Catholic baptism, and possibly Protestant baptisms that maintain a belief in baptismal regeneration.
Those baptisms actually remit sin and aren't to be repeated, even though they do not save, apart from the unity of the Church.

I am not lobbying accusations of whom is outside the Church for I agree with St. Augustine in that the Church is not strictly limited to the visible canonical Church. I am saying, for (most) heretics and schismatics, that they have the "real" sacraments but it does not profit them to salvation. Rather it is unto their damnation, as the council of Carthage says.

 

[rakovsky]

@rakovsky
Not sure what your reaction is a frowning face...

It's sadness. It's a sad situation. I want EO Churches to use EO chrism, not mixed canonical - schismatic chrism.
And then what is the effect on people who get mixed EO- Schismatic Chrism?

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

It's sadness. It's a sad situation. I want EO Churches to use EO chrism, not mixed canonical - schismatic chrism.
And then what is the effect on people who get mixed EO- Schismatic Chrism?

Ok, I misunderstood and took it to mean you didn't agree with the doctrine.

I think insofar as the people are not knowingly or intentionally schismatics, they receive the same grace.

 

[rakovsky]

I think insofar as the people are not knowingly or intentionally schismatics, they receive the same grace.

It's hard to create a rule on this. Imagine that one of the EO Church leaders and a Schismatic Church that they approve mistakenly believes that their decisions are not schismatic, that the latter Church is not schismatic, and then they make chrism together or concelebrate in an EO parish. Meanwhile, a layperson in the pews realizes that this is a schismatic mistake, but wants to still go to communion in the EO parish. It would seem by the logic that you gave that the concelebrators would receive no ill effects, but the layperson could.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

It's hard to create a rule on this. Imagine that one of the EO Church leaders and a Schismatic Church that they approve mistakenly believes that their decisions are not schismatic, that the latter Church is not schismatic, and then they make chrism together or concelebrate in an EO parish. Meanwhile, a layperson in the pews realizes that this is a schismatic mistake, but wants to still go to communion in the EO parish. It would seem by the logic that you gave that the concelebrators would receive no ill effects, but the layperson could.

I don't mean intending to create a schism in the sense that they believe it is wrong, but in the sense that they willfully engage in it. I.e the Ukrainians in the schismatic patriarch obviously believe they are in the right. But they are willfully engaging in schism. Conversely, a layman who does not follow church politics that ends up communing in a Greek church that sanctions the Ukrainian schism is still partaking of the sacraments without participating in the sin of schism.

 

[rakovsky]

I don't mean intending to create a schism in the sense that they believe it is wrong, but in the sense that they willfully engage in it. I.e the Ukrainians in the schismatic patriarch obviously believe they are in the right. But they are willfully engaging in schism. Conversely, a layman who does not follow church politics that ends up communing in a Greek church that sanctions the Ukrainian schism is still partaking of the sacraments without participating in the sin of schism.

All Churches but the MP considers the CP to still be canonical despite his concelebrating with the OCU, which most EO Churches consider schismatic. So it seems a confusing situation. Does this mean that most Churches would be fine with their parishioners communing in the OCU or their priests concelebrating with the OCU? No. So this seems like a messy situation.

 

[Samn!]

An episcopal consecration in which a fake bishop or heretic takes part is almost always considered null and void (thus why everyone outside the EP agrees that Makary Maletich isn't a bishop), but that's perhaps because such an ordination does not have the canonical three consecrators.

I'm not sure if this is the analogy that would be applied in the case of chrism consecrated with the OCU's participation.

 

[melkite]

@rakovsky
Not sure what your reaction is a frowning face to the patristic teaching. Any bolding is mine.

"Just as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him. "- St. Augustine, on Baptism against the Donatists.

We command that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who receives the baptism, or the sacrifice of heretics, be deprived: For what agreement is there between Christ and Belial? Or what part has a believer with an infidel? - Apostolic Canon 46

Anyone who receives the sacrament of Baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole Sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the Sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church. He must, therefore, return to the Church, not to that he might receive again the sacrament of Baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the Sacrament of Baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church.”- St. Fulgebtius of Ruspe

"Certainly a heretic has the baptism of Christ but, because he is outside the unity of the faith, it produces nothing for him."St. Isidore of Seville

Canon 57 of Carthage: For in coming to faith they thought the true Church to be their own and there they believed in Christ, and received the sacraments of the Trinity. And that all these sacraments are altogether true and holy and divine is most certain, and in them the whole hope of the soul is placed, although the presumptuous audacity of heretics, taking to itself the name of the truth, dares to administer them. They are but one after all, as the blessed Apostle tells us, saying: One God, one faith, one baptism, and it is not lawful to reiterate what once only ought to be administered. Those having been baptized having anathematized their error may be received by the imposition of the hand into the one Church, the pillar as it is called, and the one mother of all Christians, where all these Sacraments are received unto salvation and everlasting life; even the same sacraments which obtain for those persevering in heresy the heavy penalty of damnation."

So with numerous schisms that are impossible for most, if not all, to discern, God abandons those who, through no fault of their own, made the wrong choice with the knowledge given to them, and made the best and most sincere decision as they knew how, and condemns them to damnation?

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

So with numerous schisms that are impossible for most, if not all, to discern, God abandons those who, through no fault of their own, made the wrong choice with the knowledge given to them, and made the best and most sincere decision as they knew how, and condemns them to damnation?

"Do not err; my brethren, if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not inherit the kingdom of God." - St. Ignatius of Antioch

God does not abandon those who have no fault of their own. He condemns those who become deceived and follow schismatics and heretics by their own free will. It's not impossible to discern. We have the canons and holy fathers as guides.

 

[melkite]

"Do not err; my brethren, if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not inherit the kingdom of God." - St. Ignatius of Antioch

God does not abandon those who have no fault of their own. He condemns those who become deceived and follow schismatics and heretics by their own free will. It's not impossible to discern. We have the canons and holy fathers as guides.

Are the canons and the holy fathers things that individuals ought to take upon themselves to read, interpret and weigh?

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

Are the canons and the holy fathers things that individuals ought to take upon themselves to read, interpret and weigh?

Are you positing that the faithful cannot know where the Church is?

 

[melkite]

Are you positing that the faithful cannot know where the Church is?

We can have faith, but yeah, I don't think we can know with absolute intellectual certainty. I've been trying to figure out whether the Catholic or Orthodox church is the Church for the past 20 years. And I'm aware enough to know that there are facts out there that could sway my opinion that I'm not even specifically aware exist. How many people are truly aware and understand everything there is to know, just about this schism, so they can make an informed decision? If they aren't, then it is at best an educated guess. So what if they get their educated guess wrong? Is God going to send them to hell for making the wrong judgement with the best of intentions? Do you trust your own finite ability to judge? I certainly don't trust my own.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

We can have faith, but yeah, I don't think we can know with absolute intellectual certainty. I've been trying to figure out whether the Catholic or Orthodox church is the Church for the past 20 years. And I'm aware enough to know that there are facts out there that could sway my opinion that I'm not even specifically aware exist. How many people are truly aware and understand everything there is to know, just about this schism, so they can make an informed decision? If they aren't, then it is at best an educated guess. So what if they get their educated guess wrong? Is God going to send them to hell for making the wrong judgement with the best of intentions? Do you trust your own finite ability to judge? I certainly don't trust my own.

I trust the several hundred hours of reading I put into the papacy, filioque controversies, etc, and I know with epistemic certainty that Rome is wrong due to pride and relying on historical errors (see Aquinas' book against Orthodoxy for instance, it's almost entirely made up of forgeries).

In order to justify Rome, one must entail that faith can be ever changing and develop in scope to comprehend new doctrine and not simply have better explanations of the faith once delivered to the saints. I know for a fact that St. Ignatius of Antioch (the direct witness to the apostle John), St. Cyril, St. Augustine etc have an Orthodox ecclesiology and not a Roman one, I know for a fact that Ss. Basil and Ambrose and Gregory of Nyssa have an Orthodox triadology and not a Roman one, I know for a fact that the St. Pope Gregory the Great and St. Macarius and St. John Chrysostom don't teach Roman purgatory or indulgences. As well as I know Thomas Aquinas and other Latin doctors would not agree with papal infallibility, the Vatican curia as it exists now as a whole, the definition of immaculate conception, as they exist now etc. In fact, I am confident that if they had the same resources of the Greek fathers and the knowledge of how many forgeries they relied on as we do now that the majority of them would be Orthodox. Remember, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Constantinople primarily because he thought we had *removed* the filioque from the creed! It was only at Florence that Rome learned the creed didn't always have filioque, since every document had been interpolated with it in the West. Thousands of documents about the supremacy of the pope were interpolated and when you compare the Greek and Latin there are significant differences even in Ecumenical Council acts. Etc etc.

I don't claim to know God's judgement on the matter. But we can know what the true Church is and God judges according to how we use the knowledge given us in accordance with our capability

 

[augustin717]

I read from a Russian/Romanian source that Moscow is now demanding that the “neutral “ churches pick a side in this quarrel. That’s gonna work out well lol

 

[melkite]

I read from a Russian/Romanian source that Moscow is now demanding that the “neutral “ churches pick a side in this quarrel. That’s gonna work out well lol

Can you link it? I'm interested in reading it.

 

[melkite]

I trust the several hundred hours of reading I put into the papacy, filioque controversies, etc, and I know with epistemic certainty that Rome is wrong due to pride and relying on historical errors (see Aquinas' book against Orthodoxy for instance, it's almost entirely made up of forgeries).

In order to justify Rome, one must entail that faith can be ever changing and develop in scope to comprehend new doctrine and not simply have better explanations of the faith once delivered to the saints. I know for a fact that St. Ignatius of Antioch (the direct witness to the apostle John), St. Cyril, St. Augustine etc have an Orthodox ecclesiology and not a Roman one, I know for a fact that Ss. Basil and Ambrose and Gregory of Nyssa have an Orthodox triadology and not a Roman one, I know for a fact that the St. Pope Gregory the Great and St. Macarius and St. John Chrysostom don't teach Roman purgatory or indulgences. As well as I know Thomas Aquinas and other Latin doctors would not agree with papal infallibility, the Vatican curia as it exists now as a whole, the definition of immaculate conception, as they exist now etc. In fact, I am confident that if they had the same resources of the Greek fathers and the knowledge of how many forgeries they relied on as we do now that the majority of them would be Orthodox. Remember, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Constantinople primarily because he thought we had *removed* the filioque from the creed! It was only at Florence that Rome learned the creed didn't always have filioque, since every document had been interpolated with it in the West. Thousands of documents about the supremacy of the pope were interpolated and when you compare the Greek and Latin there are significant differences even in Ecumenical Council acts. Etc etc.

I don't claim to know God's judgement on the matter. But we can know what the true Church is and God judges according to how we use the knowledge given us in accordance with our capability

I hope one day I'll be able to have the same certainty and confidence that you do. I don't know how hundreds of hours is sufficient to envelop 2000 years of details and nuance, but if you're certain, you're certain.

 

[Samn!]

don't know how hundreds of hours is sufficient to envelop 2000 years of details and nuance, but if you're certain, you're certain.

Vatican I did away with any details or nuance.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

I hope one day I'll be able to have the same certainty and confidence that you do. I don't know how hundreds of hours is sufficient to envelop 2000 years of details and nuance, but if you're certain, you're certain.

As samn! says, it's not exactly nuanced. Vatican 1 is directly in contradiction to even the Latin doctors and popes a few hundred years prior. Vatican 1 practically anathemizes itself. Then Vatican 2 is another beast. Compare it side by side with Florence or Trent and ask yourself if any Catholics saints or bishops from before 1850 or so would agree with it.

 

[melkite]

As samn! says, it's not exactly nuanced. Vatican 1 is directly in contradiction to even the Latin doctors and popes a few hundred years prior. Vatican 1 practically anathemizes itself. Then Vatican 2 is another beast. Compare it side by side with Florence or Trent and ask yourself if any Catholics saints or bishops from before 1850 or so would agree with it.

This is what I mean. Most people aren't well-read enough to be able to do that. I'm certainly not. Outside of academics, who is able to devote enough time to come to an educated conclusion of the same certainty you have? I kind of feel like I'm expected to put blind trust in the research of others and hope that they've done their due diligence and are of absolutely upright intent, or else God may send me to hell.

 

[Samn!]

Most people aren't well-read enough to be able to do that. I'm certainly not. Outside of academics, who is able to devote enough time to come to an educated conclusion of the same certainty you have?

I think anyone with even basic literacy and a cursory knowledge of history can see from a mile away that both papal infallibility and, perhaps especially, immediate, ordinary jurisdiction, are wildly radical departures from any earlier period in the Church's history.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

This is what I mean. Most people aren't well-read enough to be able to do that. I'm certainly not. Outside of academics, who is able to devote enough time to come to an educated conclusion of the same certainty you have? I kind of feel like I'm expected to put blind trust in the research of others and hope that they've done their due diligence and are of absolutely upright intent, or else God may send me to hell.

God is patient and knows our capability.
Read His Broken Body by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerk. It is a non polemical but comprehensive overview of the Orthodox Church and Roman relations, historical, and theological incompatibilities. Don't put "blind trust" in it but take in the evidence prayerfully and without partiality.

 

[melkite]

I think anyone with even basic literacy and a cursory knowledge of history can see from a mile away that both papal infallibility and, perhaps especially, immediate, ordinary jurisdiction, are wildly radical departures from any earlier period in the Church's history.

I think anyone who goes a little beyond that cursory knowledge and reads a little beneath the surface realizes that the history of it isn't that black and white, and might get the impression that such adamant Orthodox don't know as much as they think they do.

 

[melkite]

God is patient and knows our capability.
Read His Broken Body by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerk. It is a non polemical but comprehensive overview of the Orthodox Church and Roman relations, historical, and theological incompatibilities. Don't put "blind trust" in it but take in the evidence prayerfully and without partiality.

I just bought that book! I have a few chapters left to read of "We are all Schismatics" and then will be starting in on that one.

 

[Samn!]

I think anyone who goes a little beyond that cursory knowledge and reads a little beneath the surface realizes that the history of it isn't that black and white, and might get the impression that such adamant Orthodox don't know as much as they think they do.

If the papacy had been thought to have infallibility and immediate jurisidiction during the first millenium, the the entire history of Christianity and the nature of how claims were made during controversies would've been radically different. There's no way to make either of these two dogmas anything but a very innovative power-grab.

 

[melkite]

If the papacy had been thought to have infallibility and immediate jurisidiction during the first millenium, the the entire history of Christianity and the nature of how claims were made during controversies would've been radically different. There's no way to make either of these two dogmas anything but a very innovative power-grab.

I think the history does make it look that way, and I'm sympathetic to that understanding. I just don't know enough to feel confident in saying that with certainty, or breaking communion with Rome over it.

 

[augustin717]

Can you link it? I'm interested in reading it.

From The horse’s mouth:

 

[melkite]

From The horse’s mouth:

Darn, I was hoping it was an article I could translate. Can you quote and translate the specific demand? Or know of an article saying the same I can translate?

 

[Samn!]

I think the history does make it look that way, and I'm sympathetic to that understanding. I just don't know enough to feel confident in saying that with certainty.

The idea that there's some hidden thread of absolute papal power running through history has roughly as much a basis as the Baptist "trail of blood" ecclesiology. Ultimately neither is completely falsifiable because you can't irrefutably prove the absense of something. There's no reason to go on a snipe hunt after absurdities.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

I just bought that book! I have a few chapters left to read of "We are all Schismatics" and then will be starting in on that one.

Good, you won't regret it even though it's a little pricy. His Broken Body imo is the best book on an Orthodox view of Catholicism without becoming triumphalistic. In particular, it really refutes the idea that Rome's primacy was seen as uniquely "holding the keys of Peter" and/or able to define the faith without the rest of the Church.

 

[melkite]

The idea that there's some hidden thread of absolute papal power running through history has roughly as much a basis as the Baptist "trail of blood" ecclesiology. Ultimately neither is completely falsifiable because you can't irrefutably prove the absense of something. There's no reason to go on a snipe hunt after absurdities.

Then I guess I have yet to get to the point where I feel safe enough making a leap of faith on those aspects where it's not possible to falsify completely. If I need to, pray for me that I'll eventually get there.

 

[melkite]

Good, you won't regret it even though it's a little pricy. His Broken Body imo is the best book on an Orthodox view of Catholicism without becoming triumphalistic. In particular, it really refutes the idea that Rome's primacy was seen as uniquely "holding the keys of Peter" and/or able to define the faith without the rest of the Church.

The one thing that concerns me is how short each section is - many are only one or two pages. I'm wondering how comprehensive it can be in that short amount of space. But if it's one section building on another, maybe it's not so much of an issue for me to worry about.

 

[rakovsky]

An episcopal consecration in which a fake bishop or heretic takes part is almost always considered null and void (thus why everyone outside the EP agrees that Makary Maletich isn't a bishop), but that's perhaps because such an ordination does not have the canonical three consecrators.

I'm not sure if this is the analogy that would be applied in the case of chrism consecrated with the OCU's participation.

It can't be just because of the three consecrators issue because even if you had 3 canonical consecrators and 1 schismatic consecrator standing together, it would still violate the rule you gave that mixed consecrations are always invalid.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

The one thing that concerns me is how short each section is - many are only one or two pages. I'm wondering how comprehensive it can be in that short amount of space. But if it's one section building on another, maybe it's not so much of an issue for me to worry about.

It's more or less building up. The section on the theological aspects of the papacy for instance is just under 100 pages. There are subsections that deal with very particular parts of that overall topic.

 

[Samn!]

I have a few chapters left to read of "We are all Schismatics"

The thing about Zoghby was that he was attempting to create an abstract ideal of Melkite Catholicism that was much too far removed from reality to be put into practice. That is, it was a bluff that Roman canon law doesn't apply to his church, which turned out to be trivially false. In a sense, it was his attempt to construct a fantasy around the kind of church that would suit his personal position best, when his conscience should have brought him back to his mother's Orthodoxy.