Initiating the Cause for Abp. Elias Zoghby

[bpbasilphx]

How many people here have read Abp. Elias’s book TOUS SCHISMATIQUES, published in English as WE ARE ALL SCHISMATICS?

What are the opinions about it?

And next question:

What would you all think in trying to get support for the cause of his being elevated to sainthood?

 

[Tradycja]

I read a writing of his called “Vatican I Pseudo Council” awhile back on an Armenian Catholic site no longer in existence. I have it on my hard drive but I am reluctant to post it because I don’t want to promote heresy.

He also denied the indissolubility of marriage.

I don’t see how an unorthodox Bishop can be proclaimed a saint.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I read a writing of his called “Vatican I Pseudo Council” awhile back on an Armenian Catholic site no longer in existence. I have it on my hard drive but I am reluctant to post it because I don’t want to promote heresy.

Never heard of this one, are you sure it was authored by him and says what you think it says as you got the next one way off.

He also denied the indissolubility of marriage.

This is what the Church Teaches. When a Decree of Nullity is granted it is done so because it was found that no Sacramental Marriage was present. If a marriage is found to be Sacramental then it can not be dissolved.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\He also denied the indissolubility of marriage. \

**Did you see the context where he supposedly did this?

He said that the Fathers of the East were no less able scriptural exegetes and moral theologians than those of the West.

As he pointed out, too many people labor under the assumption that “Catholic” is co-terminate with “Latin”.**

 

[twf]

Basil: are you suggesting that sacramental marriages can be dissolved in the East but not among Latins? This is one point of potential disagreement that goes beyond mere discipline. On this particular point, the Roman Pontiff has bound the Church universal in his ministry of confirming the brethren. It has nothing to do with Latin theology…it’s just a matter of truth. Either a sacramental marriage can be dissolved or it can’t. I don’t see how it could be otherwise.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Is there any intrinsic difference between “dissolving a marriage” and “declaration of nullity”?

The latter is basically a legal fiction granting the effect of the former.

 

[DixitDominus]

I don’t see how an unorthodox Bishop can be proclaimed a saint.

I completely agree.

 

[PlipPlop]

I read a writing of his called “Vatican I Pseudo Council” awhile back on an Armenian Catholic site no longer in existence. I have it on my hard drive but I am reluctant to post it because I don’t want to promote heresy.

He also denied the indissolubility of marriage.

I don’t see how an unorthodox Bishop can be proclaimed a saint.

Hi. I don’t want to get into the middle of all this, but I am going to ask you to post the file.

It is not right to withhold information, even if you believe it is wrong. Let us judge that for ourselves, thanks.

Merry Christmas.

 

[1holycatholic]

Is there any intrinsic difference between “dissolving a marriage” and “declaration of nullity”?

The latter is basically a legal fiction granting the effect of the former.

The first is impossible as valid marriage is indissoluble and ends only with death.

The second is an recognition that no valid marriage existed. In this case dissolution is meaningless. That which doesn’t exist cannot be dissolved.

That’s the intrinsic difference.

 

[Seamus_L]

bpbasilphx
Could you give us some reasons why Abp. Elias Zoghby should be elevated to Sainthood.

 

[bpbasilphx]

As a voice pleading for reconciliation between the Orthodox (including the Non-Chalcedonians) and Catholic Churches, for one thing.

One of his spiritual sons is the local Melkite priest, a very holy man. Kyr Elias’s influence is obvious in his ministry.

BTW–when you consider how the Melkites and Armenians were treated by Pope Pius IX at and immediately after Vatican I, you will see why Kyr Elias called it a pseudo-council.

 

[Hesychios]

I no longer have a copy of the CCEO.

This is just a technical question: I was wondering whether or not the Melkite church has the authority to confirm a candidate to sainthood without recourse to Rome?

 

[bpbasilphx]

I no longer have a copy of the CCEO.

This is just a technical question: I was wondering whether or not the Melkite church has the authority to confirm a candidate to sainthood without recourse to Rome?

I don’t think so…

However, that doesn’t mean one needs to wait for Rome to take the intiative for getting interest up, either.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t think so…

However, that doesn’t mean one needs to wait for Rome to take the intiative for getting interest up, either.

Oh no, I would not suggest that.

You could wait till hell froze over.

The cause should be initiated locally, but unless the patriarch and his synod have the right to put him on the calendar of their church unilaterally, I doubt that it will happen in my lifetime.

Perhaps Rome might allow Kyr Elias a ‘venerable’ in exchange for the Melkites dropping their opposition to the canonization of Pio Nono.

 

[Seamus_L]

Is there any inthusiasm for his case among the Orthodox ?

 

[chevalier]

Is there any intrinsic difference between “dissolving a marriage” and “declaration of nullity”?

Yes, an ontological one, in fact. It’s as simple as “either is or is not” - if a marriage was not validly contracted, it is not a marriage. This is not an exotic concept. Imagine making an important contract with an institutionalised patient.

The latter is basically a legal fiction granting the effect of the former.

No, on the contrary, insisting that the mere appearance is binding is fiction. There is absolutely no legal fiction in the declaration of nullity. The Orthodox know the concept too for all I know, except if one allows divorce, then why would one employ a less certain measure, as a nullity declaration is a declaratory finding, while divorce is constitutive. Speaking of, a declaration of nullity issued in error does not remove an actually valid marriage.

 

[malphono]

Is there any intrinsic difference between “dissolving a marriage” and “declaration of nullity”?

Actually, I believe there is a difference that the Orthodox (both EO and OO) also recognize. For example, in the Syriac tradition, there are 2 forms of the marriage ritual in the books. The first, (the full form with with the crowning), is for those who have not been previously married. The second, on the other hand, (which has a certain penitential flavor to it and is without the crowning), is reserved for cases where one (or both) parties had been previously married. (And, if I recall correctly, there’s a “three strikes, you’re out” rule too: a person may obtain a maximum of 2 canonical divorces.) If there were no difference, that would be unnecessary. If I’m not mistaken, the Byzantine tradition is similar.

As well, let’s consider the fact that the Orthodox (OO and EO) do make provision for canonical annulment. If there were no difference, that would be unnecessary as well.

So yes, it seems to me that there is definitely a clear difference.

The latter is basically a legal fiction granting the effect of the former.

That’s an interesting comment, and perhaps it’s true, at least to an extent. Over the years I’ve known quite a few canon lawyers (who sat on a variety of tribunals) and they always and inevitably use the term “divorce” among themselves.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, an ontological one, in fact. It’s as simple as “either is or is not” - if a marriage was not validly contracted, it is not a marriage. This is not an exotic concept. Imagine making an important contract with an institutionalised patient.

No, on the contrary, insisting that the mere appearance is binding is fiction. There is absolutely no legal fiction in the declaration of nullity. The Orthodox know the concept too for all I know, except if one allows divorce, then why would one employ a less certain measure, as a nullity declaration is a declaratory finding, while divorce is constitutive. Speaking of, a declaration of nullity issued in error does not remove an actually valid marriage.

Its not this simple. Decrees of Nullity are not infallible. So there is the possibility of a marriage being dissolved when one is granted and a marriage was validly contracted.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\The second, on the other hand, (which has a certain penitential flavor to it and is without the crowning), is reserved for cases where one (or both) parties had been previously married. (And, if I recall correctly, there’s a “three strikes, you’re out” rule too: a person may obtain a maximum of 2 canonical divorces.)\

**I cannot speak for the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, but in Orthodoxy, the Order for Second Marriage is used ONLY when both parties have been married before, whether the previous marriages were terminated by death or otherwise.

Actually, it’s “three marriages” period, again regardless of how the first two ended.**

 

[chevalier]

Decrees of Nullity are not infallible.

That’s what I said:

Speaking of, a declaration of nullity issued in error does not remove an actually valid marriage.

So there is the possibility of a marriage being dissolved when one is granted and a marriage was validly contracted.

Nope. No authority on earth has the power to dissolve a valid and sacramental marriage after consummation:

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

A declaration of nullity issued in error does *not *dissolve the marriage affected by it. The marriage *remains *valid *despite *the declaration. The people who *objectively enter into a bigamous relationship *by *attempting *to marry after receiving that declaration are *personally inculpable *so long as they act in good faith.

No dissolution whatsoever happens. What happens is an objectively bigamous and invalid attempt at subsequent marriage. This is also why tribunals should judge in accordance with the Magisterium and the Canon Law and not by a motivation to free up the parties.