Initiating the Cause for Abp. Elias Zoghby

  • Thread starter Thread starter bpbasilphx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ghosty said:
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!
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true PROTESTANT!!
 
ciero said:
Spoken like a true PROTESTANT!!
Click to expand...
Nice ad hominem, now would you mind addressing the issue?

Quoting Scripture doesn’t make one a Protestant; in fact I’ve never been a Protestant and don’t really know how to speak like one, though it seems more Protestant to pick and choose the Scriptures and Traditions to follow, and to deviate with little to no justification. 😛 I’m refering not only to this passage, but how this passage was understood by the Church Fathers (see the link to StuartK’s posts on the other forum). There is quite simply no support whatsoever for the practice of divorce and remarriage outside of the case of an unbeliever leaving their spouse.

Incidentally, Sayedna Zoghby was corrected on this viewpoint not by Latins, but by the Melkite Patriarch. As I said, this is an intra-East issue, not an East versus West issue. Here was the Patriarch’s response:
With respect to the heart of the problem, the Church must hold fast to the indissolubility of marriage, for, even though in certain cases the innocent spouse is sorely tried because of this law, the whole of family life would be shaken and ruined without this law. Moreover, if divorce in the strict sense were to be allowed on the grounds of adultery, nothing would be easier for less conscientious spouses than to create this cause.

The contrary practice of the Eastern Orthodox Churches can be supported by a few texts by certain Fathers. But these texts are contradicted by others and do not in every case constitute a sufficiently constant and universal tradition to induce the Catholic Church to change its discipline on this point.
Click to expand...
So though my views may not be universal, or even popular, I’m not stepping outside of the Melkite tradition in stating them. As I said, this is an intra-Eastern issue, not an East-West one.

Peace and God bless!
 
Could we please keep on topic.

This thread is not about the disparate views of marriage between the Orthodox and Catholics. I believe that is fodder for a new thread.
 
ByzCath said:
Could we please keep on topic.

This thread is not about the disparate views of marriage between the Orthodox and Catholics. I believe that is fodder for a new thread.
Click to expand...
I concur. When I get home from work tonight I will start a new thread on the subject. Thanks for keeping focused. 🙂

Peace and God bless!
 
ByzCath said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I really wish it wasn’t this way, but I’m afraid it is. Zoghby has given hope to many that we should at least try, and he is right about that.

I am going to be very much criticized for this observation, particularly because I am Catholic of the Roman Rite. It is the Orthodox that are holding up unity. I’ve followed the talks at Ravenna and have seen what has happened. I have hope that the Ecumenical Patriarch will make something happen, even if the ROC doesn’t agree. Politics and economics have always been the problem - from both sides.
 
ByzCath said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps what is meant here concerns an interpretation taking into account various factors, such as cultural, historical, etc. For example, the Roman Catholics say filioque in their creed, whereas the Eastern Catholics do not, the Roman Catholics use unleavened bread, whereas the Eastern Catholics use leavened bread, the Roman Catholics say that the Transubstantiation occurs immediately after the words are said, and many Eastern Catholics maintain that it occurs after the epiclesis, etc., and yet they each say that they believe all that the other believes in the essentials.
 
tdgesq said:
I am going to be very much criticized for this observation, particularly because I am Catholic of the Roman Rite. It is the Orthodox that are holding up unity.
Click to expand...
I am not going to criticize you.

You are right.

The Orthodox are acting properly in this regard. Unity without absolute doctrinal agreement is false, and will lead (among other things) to further schism later. The fathers of Holy Orthodoxy have an obligation to act with integrity in this, it should be controversial, and it should require an enormous amount of diligence and soul searching.

If there is conflict within the Orthodox church over any potential union that is a good thing, it is a healthy process that must take place.
sidbrown said:
Perhaps what is meant here concerns an interpretation taking into account various factors, such as cultural, historical, etc. For example, the Roman Catholics say filioque in their creed, whereas the Eastern Catholics do not, the Roman Catholics use unleavened bread, whereas the Eastern Catholics use leavened bread, the Roman Catholics say that the Transubstantiation occurs immediately after the words are said, and many Eastern Catholics maintain that it occurs after the epiclesis, etc., and yet they each say that they believe all that the other believes in the essentials.
Click to expand...
I have more and more come to the conclusion that this is, to a great extent, wishful thinking. That the Melkites could actually seriously consider the Zoghby Initiative, and Rome could actually reject it, is evidence of that.
 
Hesychios said:
I am not going to criticize you.

You are right.

The Orthodox are acting properly in this regard. Unity without absolute doctrinal agreement is false, and will lead (among other things) to further schism later. The fathers of Holy Orthodoxy have an obligation to act with integrity in this, it should be controversial, and it should require an enormous amount of diligence and soul searching.

If there is conflict within the Orthodox church over any potential union that is a good thing, it is a healthy process that must take place.
I have more and more come to the conclusion that this is, to a great extent, wishful thinking. That the Melkites could actually seriously consider the Zoghby Initiative, and Rome could actually reject it, is evidence of that.
Click to expand...
Well, then, it looks like we are at an insurmountable impasse since Roman Catholics say that when properly interpreted, many of the differences disappear, while Orthodox insist not.
 
I think the Orthodox would say that the Catholics are holding up unity by refusing to abandon ,what they would call ,the novelties adopted by the Latin church from Frankish influence. 🤷 Its really a matter of perspective here. Both sides, IMO are holding up the process because there are still many things to get worked out. There isn’t yet a clear cut path to unity.
 
Formosus said:
I think the Orthodox would say that the Catholics are holding up unity by refusing to abandon ,what they would call ,the novelties adopted by the Latin church from Frankish influence. 🤷 Its really a matter of perspective here. Both sides, IMO are holding up the process because there are still many things to get worked out. There isn’t yet a clear cut path to unity.
Click to expand...
yes.
 
Formosus said:
I think the Orthodox would say that the Catholics are holding up unity by refusing to abandon ,what they would call ,the novelties adopted by the Latin church from Frankish influence. 🤷 Its really a matter of perspective here. Both sides, IMO are holding up the process because there are still many things to get worked out. There isn’t yet a clear cut path to unity.
Click to expand...
I think this was the purpose of the Zoghby Initiative; i.e. cutting through all the red tape and showing that fundamentally Catholics and Orthodox hold the same faith (although the difference in emphases may give the appearance of two different faiths) and for us to persist in schism is a scandal to the world and one of the greatest sins of Christianity. Like all sin it is so rooted in pride that it will take a great deal of humility on the part of both Catholics and Orthodox for this unity to come about.

Personally I don’t know much about the life of Kyr Zoghby, but if his writings are a reflection of his life then I must agree with Bishop Basil that we should be initiating his cause for canonization.

By the way, I’m new here as of yesterday (although I’ve been following this thread from its inception and this forum in general for the past two or three years). Hello to all! 👋
 
The local Melkite priest is a spiritual son of Kyr Elias.

Maybe that’s why the parish is the healtiest spiritual enviornment I’ve experienced.
 
bpbasilphx said:
The local Melkite priest is a spiritual son of Kyr Elias.

Maybe that’s why the parish is the healtiest spiritual enviornment I’ve experienced.
Click to expand...
Most Reverend Master, bless!

May I ask what Melkite parish you’re referring to? I’d love to see it some day if I’m ever in that area.
 
ByzCath said:
If he is attending a Melkite Greek Catholic Church then he is in communion as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is in communion.
Click to expand...
I could attend the liturgy at the Coptic Orthodox parish. That doesn’t mean I’m in communion with Pope Shenouda III.
 
1holycatholic said:
I could attend the liturgy at the Coptic Orthodox parish. That doesn’t mean I’m in communion with Pope Shenouda III.
Click to expand...
I’m fairly sure that he and Fr. Brenden are Eastern Catholics. For some reason he puts Orthodox as his religion. He may believe that he is Orthodox, but Orthodox Christians do not. I find it misleading when Eastern Catholics do this as it sends the wrong message to various different people. 😦

In Christ,
Andrew
 
Harpazo said:
I’m fairly sure that he and Fr. Brenden are Eastern Catholics. For some reason he puts Orthodox as his religion. He may believe that he is Orthodox, but Orthodox Christians do not. I find it misleading when Eastern Catholics do this as it sends the wrong message to various different people. 😦

In Christ,
Andrew
Click to expand...
But alas, as with the word Catholic, the Orthodox do not own the use of the word.

I agree that the terms Orthodox, or Orthodox in Communion with Rome, used by some Eastern Catholics is problematic, it is what it is.

I prefer the term Byzantine Catholic.

But if we trace it back to its ultimate roots, then Orthodox could mean in Communion with Rome because for the first 10 centuries (or so) they were.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top