What is Your Perspective of the Zoghby Initiative?

[SiempreFiel]

The floor is all yours!

 

[MoreThan1Hat]

Based on a very quick perusal of a Wikipedia article about Abp. Zoghby and his writings, I think he had what was perhaps a good idea but expressed it poorly or in an incorrect way.

(argh, now he’s going to want me to explain myself and I am going to end up in a debate for which I am woefully unprepared, so it’s off to read more about this…)

FWIW I hadn’t heard of it until I read your original post.

 

[bpbasilphx]

At the risk of getting something thrown at me, if this is what the Melkite Bishops believe (taken in a non-binding straw vote), then I am obliged to seek to be under them, because this is what I believe, too.

I also realize that as head of the CDF, Card. Josef Ratzinger didn’t like it.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

In February 1995, Zoghby declared a two-point Profession of Faith:

1. I 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.

Hence the rest of the Catholic Church, and esp. the pope, would tend to look down upon his denial of 14 Oecumenical Councils.

Were that possible, the Eastern Christianity Forum would not have existed in the state that it did.

One may not deny that there are positive differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

 

[Ghosty]

It depends on whether you’re refering to the Zoghby Initiative engaged by Sayedna Zoghby himself, or the more nuanced and full approach adopted by the Melkite Synod as whole, which is often lumped in with the “Zoghby Initiative” proper.

They are not the same thing. For one, the Zoghby Initiative proper, which has only those two points without any clarification or nuance, does not address the question of the Papacy, but rather leaves open the possible interpretation that the Eastern Orthodox approach to the Papacy can be taken. That isn’t the position that the Melkite Synod took when it adopted Sayedna Zoghby’s initiative, however; they put forth a much more nuanced view, explicitely stating that the issue of the Papacy remained a matter of dispute between themselves and the Antiochian Orthodox, but clarifying that in terms of fundamental Faith they believed everything the Eastern Orthodox do and should open up for the sharing of Sacraments.

Both the Antiochian Orthodox and the CDF rejected the Synodal proposal on the grounds that the questions regarding sharing the same Faith hadn’t been universally settled yet. In other words, Communion can’t occur between two Particular Churches if the other Churches in their respective Communions haven’t settled matters yet.

The Synodal decision was not challenged by the CDF because of any danger to the Papacy, as some might assume. In fact, the CDF document leaves the question of how the Papacy should operate open to discussion. You can read it here:

ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm

So, as a statement of intention and identity, I agree with it, and it totally fits the lived experience of the Melkite Church, which frequently shares with the Antiochian Orthodox to the point where, on the parishoner level, there’s often not a clear seperation at all (this is certainly the case in our mission, for example). As a unilateral motion for reunion I reject it just as the Antiochian Orthodox and the Latin Church did; reunion can’t occur just by the actions of one Church individually, unfortunately.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jj2011]

A Melkite bishop asked me years ago to translate the work of the late Kyr Elias. In conscience I could not.

We hear about the “limits” of papal authority in the 1st millenium. The reality is that the popes, while not the authority of the first instance, had jurisdiction in the entire church.

Leo the Great is an Orthodox saint, fully commemorated in the Menaea. His epistles reek with references to his universal jurisdiction; he even used a vicar at Thessalonica to resolve cases in the East.

The same could be said of Pope Martin, an Orthodox saint, who presided at the Lateran Council, the acts of which should be translated and better known. Pope Martin appointed a vicar in the east to establish entire new hierarchies in the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem.

For me it would have been a great sin to do an injury to the truth, simply because it lies buried in the tomes of Mansi’s council collection.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

A Melkite bishop asked me years ago to translate the work of the late Kyr Elias. In conscience I could not.

We hear about the “limits” of papal authority in the 1st millenium. The reality is that the popes, while not the authority of the first instance, had jurisdiction in the entire church.

Leo the Great is an Orthodox saint, fully commemorated in the Menaea. His epistles reek with references to his universal jurisdiction; he even used a vicar at Thessalonica to resolve cases in the East.

He also complained that those bishops accepted canon 28 of Chalcedon, despite his protests.
I’d like, if you could, give particulars of what “cases” were being resolved.

The same could be said of Pope Martin, an Orthodox saint, who presided at the Lateran Council, the acts of which should be translated and better known. Pope Martin appointed a vicar in the east to establish entire new hierarchies in the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem.

Rome tried that in the Meletian schism. Didn’t work out.

Can you link to any information on these “new” hiearchies.

 

[jj2011]

Rome tried that in the Meletian schism. Didn’t work out.

Can you link to any information on these “new” hiearchies.

I will look up my materials for the precise information from Mansi’s council collections. Basically what Pope St. Martin did was make an orthodox bishop, IIRC, John of Philadelphia, vicar with authority to ordain orthodox bishops and priests in the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem during the Monothelite crisis.

For the moment, I will link to a secondary source, Matti Moosa’s The Maronites In History.

books.google.com/books?id=8Ogp94y8CJgC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=pope+martin+patriarchates+of+antioch+and+jerusalem&source=web&ots=CVwzZjNlsG&sig=gQ1cyJ1wCi6C1OBBP52-kGSe5QM&hl=en#PPA127,M1

 

[jj2011]

Rome tried that in the Meletian schism. Didn’t work out.

Can you link to any information on these “new” hiearchies.

It’s an exaggeration that Rome tried to create a new hierarchy during the Meletian schism, if you’re referring to the 4th century schism at Antioch.

There were three claimants: the highly popular St. Meletius, the priest Paulinus, and the erstwhile Apollinarian Vitalis. Pope Damasus initially wrote a letter apparently recognizing Paulinus. Rome later revoked that recognition.

According to St Jerome’s letter 16 to St Damasus, all three claimed to adhere to the latter: “Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus say that they adhere to you… either two of them are lying, or all three.”

 

[Apotheoun]

I accept the Zoghby Initiative as proposed by Archbishop Zoghby and as approved by the Melkite Patriarch and Holy Synod.

The Zoghby Initiative

From a Melkite Greek Catholic press release (September 1996):

The holy Synod of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church met in Rabweh, Lebanon, July 22-27, 1996 and, after studying the question of unity within the Patriarchate of Antioch, declared that communicatio in sacris = worship in common is possible today and that the ways and means of its application would be left to the joint decisions of the two Antiochian Church Synods - Melkite Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox. The Synod of thirty-four bishops and four general superiors under the presidency of Patriarch Maximos V (Hakim) deliberated extensively on the topic of church unity particularly within the Antiochian Patriarchate which has been divided since 1724, and issued a document titled, Reunification of the Antiochian Patriarchate. This document is part of the official minutes of the Synod and was made public on August 15, 1996 in the Middle East:

The Melkite Synod sees that the church of the first millennium could be the model for unity today. The Synod strongly affirms its full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome and that this communion would not be ruptured. The Fathers offered their thanks to the International Theological Commission as well as the Joint Synodal Commissions recently reestablished by Patriarch Maximos V and Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius IV.

Key to this initiative was the profession of faith made by the Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop Elias Zoghby:

They offer special thanks to Archbishop Elias Zoghby whose 1995 Profession of Faith was the major force for reopening dialogue with the Orthodox brothers. Zoghby, the former archbishop of Baalbek and a long-time leader among the Melkite bishops, offered this brief statement in 1995 and it was subscribed to by 24 of the 26 bishops present at the 1995 Holy Synod:

**1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

1. 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.**

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I accept the Zoghby Initiative as proposed by Archbishop Zoghby and as approved by the Melkite Patriarch and Holy Synod.

I do too…

They offer special thanks to Archbishop Elias Zoghby whose 1995 Profession of Faith was the major force for reopening dialogue with the Orthodox brothers. Zoghby, the former archbishop of Baalbek and a long-time leader among the Melkite bishops, offered this brief statement in 1995 and it was subscribed to by 24 of the 26 bishops present at the 1995 Holy Synod:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

1. 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.

Now - the simplest, easiest part is just hammering out how we understand #1, and after that quick work, move to how we understand #2!

And from there we can see how we might not have settled anything at all…

Still, eternal memory to the good Bishop… That we could start to have that conversation speaks volumes…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It’s an exaggeration that Rome tried to create a new hierarchy during the Meletian schism, if you’re referring to the 4th century schism at Antioch.

There were three claimants: the highly popular St. Meletius, the priest Paulinus, and the erstwhile Apollinarian Vitalis. Pope Damasus initially wrote a letter apparently recognizing Paulinus. Rome later revoked that recognition.

According to St Jerome’s letter 16 to St Damasus, all three claimed to adhere to the latter: “Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus say that they adhere to you… either two of them are lying, or all three.”

St. Jerome received ordination from Paulinus, after writing to Rome for instructions.

There were three hierarchies during the Meletian schism: one, the Sees of Constantinople and Alexandria insisted on, and survives to this day. Two others, including that Rome approved, died out.

 

[marlo]

why dont you just create a new thread in the apologetics forum as this is regarding to the zoghby initiative.

St. Jerome received ordination from Paulinus, after writing to Rome for instructions.

There were three hierarchies during the Meletian schism: one, the Sees of Constantinople and Alexandria insisted on, and survives to this day. Two others, including that Rome approved, died out.

 

[Alexios]

How can you accept everything Eastern Orthodoxy teaches while remaining in communion with the Catholic Church? I have never understood how these people get around de fide Catholic dogma like Papal Infallibility, and the Catholic teachings on things like divorce and contraception.

In my opinion, it is impossible. Which is one of the many reasons, I’m sure, both Rome and the Antiochian Orthodox rejected the initiative.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

why dont you just create a new thread in the apologetics forum as this is regarding to the zoghby initiative.

Here, here!

Isa, I know you may sometimes confuse the new format, but really this is the forum for Eastern Catholic issues now… That belongs in apologetics.

 

[Ghosty]

How can you accept everything Eastern Orthodoxy teaches while remaining in communion with the Catholic Church? I have never understood how these people get around de fide Catholic dogma like Papal Infallibility, and the Catholic teachings on things like divorce and contraception.

In my opinion, it is impossible. Which is one of the many reasons, I’m sure, both Rome and the Antiochian Orthodox rejected the initiative.

I recommend reading the actual Synodal declaration. They don’t deny Papal Infallibility or anything of the like, but rather didn’t include it in the “fundamental agreement” with Eastern Orthodoxy. They explicitly left the role of the Pope as something yet to be settled with the Antiochian Orthodox. The point of the Melkite Synod was that, in terms of fundamental Faith, there is no difference between themselves and the Eastern Orthodox; the position of the Papacy is understood to be a still-unsettled issue.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alexios]

I could buy that, Ghosty, but what about contraception and divorce? Eastern Orthodoxy seems to have no clear teaching on contraception, and it clearly teaches that supernatural Christian marriages can be dissolved while both spouses still live, something Catholicism denies. How is that settled?

 

[Ghosty]

I could buy that, Ghosty, but what about contraception and divorce? Eastern Orthodoxy seems to have no clear teaching on contraception, and it clearly teaches that supernatural Christian marriages can be dissolved while both spouses still live, something Catholicism denies. How is that settled?

Again, those aren’t things that cut to the heart of “Orthodox Faith”. Within Orthodoxy you’ll find views on those subjects which are even more strict than anything the Catholic Church puts forth, and you’ll also find views that would make an Episcopalian blush.

Those issues simply aren’t “Faith deciding subjects” the way they might be in the Catholic Church, and so if you say “I have the same Faith as the Eastern Orthodox” you’re not really falling on one side or another with regard to them. The Melkite Church can be presumed to hold the Catholic position on such matters, while still falling within the bounds of “Eastern Orthodox belief”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Dan-Man916]

I accept the Zoghby Initiative as proposed by Archbishop Zoghby and as approved by the Melkite Patriarch and Holy Synod.

Then would you also accept Canon 43 of the CCEO, which you are bound to submit to as a Catholic in union with the Bishop of Rome?

Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office
(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the
Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the
college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire
Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he
enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in
the Church which he can always freely exercise.

 

[Apotheoun]

As Melkite Patriarch Grégoire III LAHAM has said: “. . . the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!”

SYNODUS EPISCOPORUM
BULLETIN

The CCEO is a Latin document that imposes canonical forms upon the Eastern Catholic Churches that are foreign to the Byzantine tradition. Luckily this fact is recognized by Cardinal Kasper who recently said: “Already the apostolic constitution enforcing the Eastern Code of Canon Law stated that its regulations were valid only in the intermediate term, that is, until full reconciliation with the Eastern Churches not in full communion. Thus, the model of the exercise of primacy we have in the Eastern Catholic Churches is not necessarily the model for the future reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches.” The CCEO is a transitional document, and it will someday fade into the past just as other Latinizations have faded away.

Ravenna Was “Breakthrough” in Orthodox-Catholic Ties - Cardinal Kasper Looks Ahead