Initiating the Cause for Abp. Elias Zoghby

[Ghosty]

Why do the Catholic authorities reject the Zoghby initiative?

For the same reason as the Eastern Orthodox: despite the profession of the Zoghby Initiative, not all issues have been fully resolved between the Catholics and the Orthodox, and on top of that it is inappropriate for individual Churches to act unilaterally when the rest of their respective Communions still have reservations about reunion.

For what it’s worth, even the Zoghby Initiative did not say that the Melkite Church accepts the Eastern Orthodox view of the Papacy; on the contrary the Melkite Synod said that this matter was still up for discussion and dispute, and that more work needed to be done in order to resolve it. Contrary to popular belief, the Melkite Synod did not renounce the Catholic understanding of the Papacy when it adopted the Zoghby Initiative. To wit:

4.The Joint Commission will discuss one point further, that is, the role of the Bishop of Rome in the church and in the ecumenical councils. On this subject the Fathers of the Synod adopt what was stated in the Second Vatican Council: to give due consideration to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before separation (Decree on Ecumenism #14); and also what His Holiness Pope John Paul II said in his encyclical That All May Be One - Ut Unum Sint (#61): The Catholic Church desires nothing less than full communion between East and West. She finds inspiration for this in the experience of the first millennium. Concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome the Fathers declare that they are inspired by the understanding in which East and West lived in the first millennium in the light of the teachings of the seven ecumenical councils, and they see that there is no reason for the separation to continue because of that primacy.

So while the Melkite Church is looking at the first millenium, it does not accept outright the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of the first millenium (else they would not speak of primacy, and there would not be any need for discussion). The Melkite Church accepts what is taught by Vatican II and Pope John Paul II on the matter, but believes that a reconciliation can still be made on those grounds.

So, while the Zoghby Initiative was perhaps a conversation starter, it remains a dead letter until the on-going discussion of Roman Primacy is resolved; the Melkites simply believe that unity in the Sacraments can be a reality before that issue is fully resolved, while the Eastern Orthodox and Rome disagree.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

There are some differences though. For one thing, in the Eastern Orthodox Church it is a sin to get a divorce and there is a limit to how many you can have.

And one could counter that, apparently, living in adultery is NOT a sin in Eastern Orthodoxy, since remarriage after divorce is called adultery in Scripture.

It’s a messy issue, indeed.

Peace and God bless!

 

[sidbrown]

And one could counter that, apparently, living in adultery is NOT a sin in Eastern Orthodoxy, since remarriage after divorce is called adultery in Scripture.

It’s a messy issue, indeed.

Peace and God bless!

According to Eastern Orthodoxy, if you obtain a Churhc sponsored divorce, you are free to remarry in the Church. So, no, they do not consider it to be adultery and they claim that it was allowed in the early Church while the East and West were one.

 

[Ghosty]

According to Eastern Orthodoxy, if you obtain a Churhc sponsored divorce, you are free to remarry in the Church. So, no, they do not consider it to be adultery and they claim that it was allowed in the early Church while the East and West were one.

Yes, and this position is directly against Scripture, which is my point.

1 Corinthians 10:

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Remarriage is not permitted, according to Scripture. Whether or not divorce is considered a sin is a small matter, since sin can be forgiven. The question how a tradition can condone a perpetual sin, as defined by Scripture.

Notice that St. Paul explicitely says that this command is from God, not from his own prudential judgement.

My main reason for bringing this up is merely to balance out the discussion, as it seemed that you were implying that the Latin Church is more lenient, when in fact it’s following Scripture’s own prohibitions.

Peace and God bless!

 

[sidbrown]

Yes, and this position is directly against Scripture, which is my point.

1 Corinthians 10:

Remarriage is not permitted, according to Scripture. Whether or not divorce is considered a sin is a small matter, since sin can be forgiven. The question how a tradition can condone a perpetual sin, as defined by Scripture.

Notice that St. Paul explicitely says that this command is from God, not from his own prudential judgement.

My main reason for bringing this up is merely to balance out the discussion, as it seemed that you were implying that the Latin Church is more lenient, when in fact it’s following Scripture’s own prohibitions.

Peace and God bless!

My understanding is that the Orthodox claim is that Church approved divorce was allowed in the early Church and there was no objection from Rome.

 

[Ghosty]

My understanding is that the Orthodox claim is that Church approved divorce was allowed in the early Church and there was no objection from Rome.

Lots of things have happened in the Church without immediate disapproval of Rome. Monothelitism, for example. Do the Eastern Orthodox contend that Monothelitism is allowed because Rome didn’t immediately disapprove?

Every sin imaginable has gone on in the Church at one point or another, with greater or lesser periods of toleration. Such an argument does nothing to prove that such actions aren’t against God, they merely show that at certain times the enforcement of God’s Law has been somewhat lax, or perhaps that transgressions against God haven’t been as heavily censored. Ironically, with this kind of argumentation the Eastern Orthodox prove themselves to be just as legalistic as the most ultra-Montane Latins.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Madaglan]

Lots of things have happened in the Church without immediate disapproval of Rome. Monothelitism, for example. Do the Eastern Orthodox contend that Monothelitism is allowed because Rome didn’t immediately disapprove?

Every sin imaginable has gone on in the Church at one point or another, with greater or lesser periods of toleration. Such an argument does nothing to prove that such actions aren’t against God, they merely show that at certain times the enforcement of God’s Law has been somewhat lax, or perhaps that transgressions against God haven’t been as heavily censored. Ironically, with this kind of argumentation the Eastern Orthodox prove themselves to be just as legalistic as the most ultra-Montane Latins.

Peace and God bless!

Silence for centuries? Hmm

Just a thought, but perhaps divorce was not as major an issue as something like Monothelitism. Today, it is true, divorces are more common, but I would not be surprised if divorces (and annulments, on the Catholic side) were in the past a rare occurrence and so were not given the same attention as today.

 

[Ghosty]

Silence for centuries? Hmm

Just a thought, but perhaps divorce was not as major an issue as something like Monothelitism. Today, it is true, divorces are more common, but I would not be surprised if divorces (and annulments, on the Catholic side) were in the past a rare occurrence and so were not given the same attention as today.

I think this is highly likely. Between intermittant persecutions and martyrdoms, major heresies springing up every century or less, and barbarian invasions that laid waste to the Western half of the Roman Empire, I’m sure that minor canons relating to marriage and divorce didn’t come across the radar too often. Also, like you, I’d be surprised if divorce and remarriage was a very common practice to begin with at that time.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dvdjs]

Centuries? Divorce perhaps, but remarriage* in the church* was late in the history of the undivided Church. StuartK has written extensively on this point over at byzcath. byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/333487/1

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think the thread has gotten a bit off topic.

I am still wondering if sidbrown believes that holding to an initiative that the Church has denied is a reason that the a cause for sainthood should not be initiated or if such a thing should mean that the person should be denied sainthood.

 

[Madaglan]

Centuries? Divorce perhaps, but remarriage* in the church* was late in the history of the undivided Church. StuartK has written extensively on this point over at byzcath. byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/333487/1

Interesting stuff.

 

[sidbrown]

I think the thread has gotten a bit off topic.

I am still wondering if sidbrown believes that holding to an initiative that the Church has denied is a reason that the a cause for sainthood should not be initiated or if such a thing should mean that the person should be denied sainthood.

Hello ByzCath:
My guess is that it would depend on a few things such as how staunchly the initiative was held or how severe was the denial of the Church or upon the gravity of the issue. Generally, for sainthood, one looks at the character and holiness of the person, but if the person is defiant and against the Church on some serious issue, then I suppose that this would be a barrier of sorts which would have to be taken into account in any cause for sainthood.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hello ByzCath:
My guess is that it would depend on a few things such as how staunchly the initiative was held or how severe was the denial of the Church or upon the gravity of the issue. Generally, for sainthood, one looks at the character and holiness of the person, but if the person is defiant and against the Church on some serious issue, then I suppose that this would be a barrier of sorts which would have to be taken into account in any cause for sainthood.

Thanks, so do you think that Abp. Elias should not be considered because of his initiative?

 

[sidbrown]

Thanks, so do you think that Abp. Elias should not be considered because of his initiative?

Personally, I would think that his initiative would be a help rather than a hindrance to sainthood.

 

[tdgesq]

Thanks, so do you think that Abp. Elias should not be considered because of his initiative?

Well, I suppose if Photius can be considered a saint amongst Byzantine Rite Catholics, then so can Archbishop Zoghby. I haven’t read Abp. Zoghby’s book, but I have encountered his initiative many times over the years.

This formulation is obviously problematic:

1. believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

On point number one: Not all the EO have the same teachings. Although most of them seem to agree that the Pope of Rome is a heretic.

On point number two: The EO and the CC can’t agree what the limits were to the papacy during the first millennium. Even if such an agreement were reached, the development of doctrine is deeply rooted in the RCC. As a practical matter, some development is necessary of every apostolic church, no matter its designation. I’m uncertain how this could be resolved.

I believe that unity can and will be reached, but from what I’ve seen I think the Archbishop’s proposal is damaging if taken literally. Fortunately, it appears it is more of a springboard for a true effort at ecumenism. That alone could be enough for initiating the cause.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Lots of things have happened in the Church without immediate disapproval of Rome. Monothelitism, for example. Do the Eastern Orthodox contend that Monothelitism is allowed because Rome didn’t immediately disapprove?

Uh, no, because Monothelitism was explicitly condemned by an Ecumenical Council, along with those who taught it. Joe

 

[tdgesq]

Uh, no, because Monothelitism was explicitly condemned by an Ecumenical Council, along with those who taught it. Joe

Wow. What a way not to answer his question. Lame.

 

[Deacon_Lance]

People are going to have to wrap their minds around the fact that the Eastern and Western Churches simply have different teachings about the Mystery of Marriage that result in different apporaches. First, since in the Byzantine tradition the priest confers the sacrament there is very little allowance for nullity although it is still possible, nonage, affinity, abduction, come to mind. Second the Byzantine tradition, sees marriage as eternal since the marriage of a husband and wife is an icon of the marriage of Chrsit to his Church and becasue it is a sacrament. Therefore all second marraiges, even those of widows/widowers, are frowned upon and are considered not of the same status as the first. The service is penitential in nature and does not include crowning and requires exclusion from Communion for 2 years. This is an exercise of economia in concession to human weakness. Since marriages breakdown in our fallen world, some times through no fault of one of the spouses, the Byzantine Church extended this economia to the innocent spouse in narrowly defiend cases, abandonment, adultery, insanity, and few others. This economia is seen as an act of mercy conceded to an innocent party so that out of weakness they do not fall into the greater sin of fornication. This is what Archbishop Elias argued should be extended to abandoned or abused spouses. He disliked the legalistic and unprovable attempts to prove lack of consent years after the fact to come up with a declaration of nullity. Simply admit a marraige is broken and allow the innocent spouse to move on and leave the rest to our God who good and loves mankind.

 

[Ghosty]

This economia is seen as an act of mercy conceded to an innocent party so that out of weakness they do not fall into the greater sin of fornication.

The problem is, however, that such marriages ARE fornication according to St. Paul, who himself says this is from the Lord and not from himself. This is not a question of East versus West, but a question of whether or not the East falls into the trap of condoning something that is unequivocally forbidden by God. This is something that must be faced by Easterners who defend this practice, regardless of what Latins think. Specifically St. Paul says this:

[10]To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband
[11] (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) – and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

The key point is that it is not canon law that calls remarriage after divorce a sin, but God. It is not legalistic to point this out, it is a plain fact of Scripture. In ancient times the penitential aspect to the second marriage was applied to cases where the first spouse died, not to necessarily to cases of remarriage after divorce. In fact, the Fathers of the East viewed remarriage after the death of a spouse to be very problematic, and in all cases that I’ve seen them speak of remarriage requiring years of abstinence from the Eucharist it was in this kind of case. I’ve yet to see anything from the Early Church that indicates that divorce and remarriage was in fact permitted.

The only case in which remarriage after divorce seems to be permitted is when an unbelieving spouse leaves a Christian, then the Christian can remarry (even Christ’s statement about “except in the case of adultery” seems to refer to the divorce, not to the remarriage).

I would just like to see how something that is clearly defined as fornication by God (remarriage after divorce) becomes non-fornication. This is a bit off-topic, and perhaps should become its own thread, but it is an important issue that goes well beyond any debate between East and West. I ask this not as a Latin who’s trying to persecute the East, but as an Easterner who is trying to understand a practice that disturbs me and doesn’t seem to have a place in the Early Church. The question of “declarations of nullity” are, of course, a whole different kettle of worms, but we do need a better answer than “the East has its own way of doing things” when Scripture so clearly forbids this practice.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, I suppose if Photius can be considered a saint amongst Byzantine Rite Catholics, then so can Archbishop Zoghby. I haven’t read Abp. Zoghby’s book, but I have encountered his initiative many times over the years.

This formulation is obviously problematic:

1. believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.On point number one: Not all the EO have the same teachings. Although most of them seem to agree that the Pope of Rome is a heretic.

On point number two: The EO and the CC can’t agree what the limits were to the papacy during the first millennium. Even if such an agreement were reached, the development of doctrine is deeply rooted in the RCC. As a practical matter, some development is necessary of every apostolic church, no matter its designation. I’m uncertain how this could be resolved.

I believe that unity can and will be reached, but from what I’ve seen I think the Archbishop’s proposal is damaging if taken literally. Fortunately, it appears it is more of a springboard for a true effort at ecumenism. That alone could be enough for initiating the cause.

My issue with the it is that to believe number one then you can not believe number 2 and vice versa.

Because today, one of the beliefs of Orthodoxy is that the Pope is not what Catholics believe him to be.

I can not see how one can say that they believe all that the Orthodox do but be in communion with Rome, to me it is holding to contradicting thoughts in the mind at the same time which is an impossibility.