Have any Eastern or Latin Catholic priests or hierarchs condemned the "Zoghby Initiative"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Harpazo

Guest
Glory to Jesus Christ!

Having been an Eastern Catholic before entering Holy Orthodoxy, I am well aware of the so called “Zoghby Initiative.” Of course, I disagree with it and find it to be contradictory to Rome’s understanding of ecclesiology; yet, this thread is not about me or how I view the doctrine, but rather if there have been any condemnations of the belief and how that affects you as a Latin or Eastern Catholic.

In Christ,
Andrew, a sinner.
 
I am not aware of any explicit condemnations. The Wikipedia article mainly lists objections as conducting reconciliation in incorrect order. I am not sure what that means in a theological sense. The Church is not supposed to be a bureaucracy bound by “rules” and “order” but rather the Body of Christ. It is a living, breathing (Holy Spirit 👍) entity. Repairs should be surgical. Sometimes, it will get messy (as far as we humans are concerned) but in the end the Body will be whole.
 
To my knowledge the Zoghby Initiative was never condemned. If memory serves me correctly, it was highly praised by both Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) and the hierarchy of the Antiochian Orthodox Church. However, while both praised it, it was also set aside as being “inopportune.” The argument was that there could be not communion between particular churches without there simultaneously being communion between all churches.

As to your concerns about Roman ecclesiology, I would say that it is just that, Roman. The ecclesiology of Rome does not apply to, or supercede, the ecclesiology of the other particular churches within the Catholic communion. We do, however, believe that there is no real contradiction between Roman ecclesiology and the various ecclesiologies of the many Eastern and Oriental churches. But that is a topic for another thread.
 
My understanding is that it was condemned by Cardinal Ratzinger (as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) for three reasons, all of which can be summed up by saying that it’s either vague or inopportune:
  1. The clause of the Zoghby Initiative that says that “we believe all that the Orthodox Church teaches” is vague; it is true if and only if the teachings of the Orthodox Church are the same as those of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Ratzinger did not reject the idea that the teachings of the Orthodox Church are the same as those of the Catholic Church, but only insisted that that be clarified as being true.
  2. The clause of the Zoghby Initiative that accepts the primacy of the Pope “in accordance with his role in the first millennium of the Church” (to quote Zoghby’s proposal loosely - I don’t have the three conditions in his words in front of me) is also vague. Here Ratzinger did say that the Pope today has the same role that he had in the first millennium, but since most Orthodox say that the post-schism Popes have exceeded the authority that they had in the first millennium, this also has to be clarified as being true.
  3. Here comes the inopportune part: Parishes that subscribe to the Zogbhy Initiative are in communion with Orthodox bishops that are not in communion with the rest of the Catholic Church. The problem isn’t that we’re in communion with the Orthodox, but that the Orthodox reject communion with the rest of the Catholic Church. To be in communion with Rome makes you a Catholic in the Catholic Church’s eyes, and as much as I would love to be in communion with all the Orthodox, they must be willing to accept communion with a Catholic in order to make this communion real.
 
The fact that people think that the Orthodox and Catholics believe the same is not completely true. The Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception and that is a doctrine of the Catholic church which cannot be changed. The Orthodox believe that Mary became pure or sinless at the Annunciation when she accepted her fiat. The Catholics believe that she was conceived without sin from her conception. That will have to be reconciled before true unity can occur. Also, Orthodox allow contraception and divorce and remarriage. That would cause some problems to iron out. The Orthodox do not accept the supreme authority of the pope which is something that cannot be changed because we believe he is the earthly head of the church and not just first among equals. If the church waters down her teachings just to appease people of other persuasions then I would no longer believe she is the true church but has apostasized from the faith. Then I would have to seek out another group that upholds the teachings of the church the way they are supposed to be, like the sspx. Also, the Orthodox do not accept intercommunion with us anyway, so it is a waste of time to persue this dialogue if these attitudes do not change. I am beginning to think our time could be better spent strengthening our own Catholic people’s faith rather than haranguing on the continuing treadmill of nowhere.
Mtngal
 
mtngal25 said:
The fact that people think that the Orthodox and Catholics believe the same is not completely true. The Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception and that is a doctrine of the Catholic church which cannot be changed. The Orthodox believe that Mary became pure or sinless at the Annunciation when she accepted her fiat. The Catholics believe that she was conceived without sin from her conception. That will have to be reconciled before true unity can occur. Also, Orthodox allow contraception and divorce and remarriage. That would cause some problems to iron out. The Orthodox do not accept the supreme authority of the pope which is something that cannot be changed because we believe he is the earthly head of the church and not just first among equals. If the church waters down her teachings just to appease people of other persuasions then I would no longer believe she is the true church but has apostasized from the faith. Then I would have to seek out another group that upholds the teachings of the church the way they are supposed to be, like the sspx. Also, the Orthodox do not accept intercommunion with us anyway, so it is a waste of time to persue this dialogue if these attitudes do not change. I am beginning to think our time could be better spent strengthening our own Catholic people’s faith rather than haranguing on the continuing treadmill of nowhere.
Mtngal
Click to expand...
Sure the Orthodox believe in the Immaculate Conception. Our favorite prayer is “More honorable than the Cherubim, and in glory far beyond compare than that of the Seraphim, who WITHOUT SPOT gave birth to God the Word, truly the Theotokos do we magnify” My signature is a tropar. And then there are the words of St. Silouan the Athonite: “In church I was listening to a reading from the prophet Isaiah, and at the words, ‘Wash you, make you clean,’ I reflected, ‘Maybe the Mother of God sinned at one time or another, if only in thought.’ And, marvelous to relate, in unison with my prayer a voice sounded in my heart, saying clearly, ‘The Mother of God never sinned even in thought.’ Thus did the Holy Spirit bear witness in my heart to her purity.”

The Immaculate Conception was never condemned by an ecumenical council or any other authoritative source. Individual Orthodox in America who deny it can only appeal to private interpretation in order to justify rejecting it, and in doing so they are rejecting the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas and St. Peter Mohyla, among others. Hell, even the Old Believers cling to the doctrine tenaciously. The whole reason why Rome waited so long before defining it was because it was thought to be the doctrine of just the Greek Church rather than a universal Catholic teaching.

Also, the Orthodox should accept Catholic teaching on birth control. Their own Patriarchs did. In August 1968 Patriarch Athenagoras sent a telegram to Pope Paul VI: “We assure you that we remain close to you, above all in these recent days when you have taken the good step of publishing the encyclical Humanae Vitae. We are in total agreement with you, and wish you all God’s help to continue your mission in the world."

And last time the Churches crossed barbs over divorce it was because the Pope allowed a Byzantine emperor to re-marry - AFTER his first wife’s death! Such laxity was horribly shocking to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

And they do accept the primacy of the Pope of Rome. As St. Symeon of Thessaloniki said in the 14th century, “Let [the Latins] only show that the pope perseveres in the faith of Peter… and we acknowledge in him all the privileges of Peter, and we recognize him as the leader ,as the head and supreme pontiff… [W]e will proclaim him truly apostolic and we will consider him the first of the pontiffs and we will obey him not only as Peter, but as if he were the Savior himself.” (PG 155:120-121)
 
If all you say is true, then, unity would have occured a long time ago. I have talked to Orthodox priests and they do not believe that Mary was immaculately conceived but became purified at the Annunciation. It seems like there are quite a few vague interpretations of things that need to be clarified and I don’t understand why hierarchs can’t just be clear about what they really believe so there can be transparency on these issues.I think that the Orthodox feel uncomfortable about the pope and that is what interferes with unity. However, my belief is that the pope is absolutely necessary in order to be really Catholic. He was chosen by Christ to run the church and I will not water down his position for the sake of unity. I much prefer unity with the Orthodox rather than protestants because the Orthodox are closer and have valid orders. We all have to be careful about this unity business so that we don’t water down things just to “get together.” What I think would help is for talks to include taking each area of disagreement or misunderstanding and hammering on that until unity on that issue can occur. Then go on to the next thing and talk about that, etc. However, if they water down or change the papacy to something other than what the Catholic church really believes then I would feel that the church has abandoned the true faith. In my belief, it is necessary to have a pope in order to hold the church together. We have to have central authority or the church would split up into denominations just like the protestants. The church cannot be an umbrella system like the New Age movement. It has to be united and in harmony with all its rites and doctrines so that the mission of the church will not be divided or compromised.
Mtngal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top