What is Your Perspective of the Zoghby Initiative?

[Cecilianus]

The one difference that I see between “then and now” is that then it was within the “High Petrine” view. That is quite clear by the mention of “appeal” and “confirmation” etc. In the now, of course, we’re faced with the “Absolutist Petrine” view which is another ball of wax entirely.

I think that the two complement each other. Hence today we see both Ecumenical Councils - an example of the “High Petrine” model working, if I understand your distinction correctly - and Papal Encyclicals, an example of Papal Monarchy at work.

 

[John_Larocque]

If the Latin Rite ever cleans up its liturgical act (which could take a LONG time) and the hypothetical reunion ever happens, Zoghby will remembered as a prophet.

 

[Seamus_L]

Fortunately, plenty of Orthodox see the Zoghby Initiative for what it is, an agreement to disagree while pretending to be in communion.

 

[malphono]

I think that the two complement each other. Hence today we see both Ecumenical Councils - an example of the “High Petrine” model working, if I understand your distinction correctly - and Papal Encyclicals, an example of Papal Monarchy at work.

To my eye, the two are totally separate views of the position of the Bishop of Rome. This has been discussed in various threads in this forum, notably at some length a few weeks back in [thread=349702]this thread [/thread].

In any case, the “High Petrine” view is really what was operative in the first millenium. After the schism, the Byzantines seem to have morphed into the “Low Petrine” view (from whence we get the infamous "primus inter pares"). For its part, Rome, gradually morphed into the “Absolutist Petrine” view which is still there today.

 

[Cecilianus]

To my eye, the two are totally separate views of the position of the Bishop of Rome. This has been discussed in various threads in this forum, notably at some length a few weeks back in [thread=349702]this thread [/thread].

In any case, the “High Petrine” view is really what was operative in the first millenium. After the schism, the Byzantines seem to have morphed into the “Low Petrine” view (from whence we get the infamous "primus inter pares"). For its part, Rome, gradually morphed into the “Absolutist Petrine” view which is still there today.

Well, the “Absolutist Petrine” view as you call it is what was defined as de fide by Vatican I, so as a Catholic that’s what I must believe.

 

[malphono]

Well, the “Absolutist Petrine” view as you call it is what was defined as de fide by Vatican I, so as a Catholic that’s what I must believe.

While I would like to take credit for it, as the cited thread (among others) shows, the designation “Absolutist Petrine view” came about without me.

In any case, I have to quote an earlier post here:

bpbasilphx:

The Melkite Patirarch left Vatican I before the vote was taken after being bullied by Pius IX.

When forced to sign the decree later, he added, “Without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs” or words to that effect.

And hence we have the “Zoghby Initiative”.

The “regulars” in this forum know that it’s not common for me to agree with the Melkite position, but this case is a huge exception. In good conscience I have no choice but to do so.

 

[Cecilianus]

The Melkite Patirarch left Vatican I before the vote was taken after being bullied by Pius IX.

When forced to sign the decree later, he added, “Without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs” or words to that effect.

As Catholics we must unconditionally accept the teachings of the Church, including the Ecumenical Councils. The Melkite Patriarch is no exception.

Even Archbishop Lefebvre signed Vatican II’s declaration on religious freedom. Even the Arian bishops (except two in Libya) signed the canons of Nicea. The fact that the Melkite Patriarch did not wholeheartedly accept the teaching of the Church is a blot on his reputation. And as a Catholic I must accept Vatican I wholly and fully, as with every teaching promulgated by the Magisterium.

 

[trophybearer]

As Catholics we must unconditionally accept the teachings of the Church, including the Ecumenical Councils. The Melkite Patriarch is no exception.

Even Archbishop Lefebvre signed Vatican II’s declaration on religious freedom. Even the Arian bishops (except two in Libya) signed the canons of Nicea. The fact that the Melkite Patriarch did not wholeheartedly accept the teaching of the Church is a blot on his reputation. And as a Catholic I must accept Vatican I wholly and fully, as with every teaching promulgated by the Magisterium.

Thus speaketh Pope Barcalounger the First! Someone get the Pope a diet soda and some Funyuns; his Eminence runneth low!

 

[Hesychios]

Fortunately, plenty of Orthodox see the Zoghby Initiative for what it is, an agreement to disagree while pretending to be in communion.

I am not going to disagree with you here.

But I have seen a lot of people post here who wish they could go to an Orthodox church and receive communion. Now the Orthodox are very strict about this, no Orthodox person may receive if he has any disagreement with Orthodox doctrine. (In fact, if the person does disagree with Orthodox doctrine, he or she is not really Orthodox.)

It goes without saying then, that any non-Orthodox will be expected to comply as well, and the only way for us to know for sure is for a person to be Chrismated after renouncing any errors taught by their former church. So in fact the person is not a non-Orthodox… we are right back where we started, only communing with the Orthodox.

The Zoghby Initiative is an attempt to find a middle ground, which I admire immensely. But it is not really viable, there has been too much water passed under that bridge. We are, if anything, further apart theologically than we were in the 9th century. This despite the fact that we are getting along together one hell of a lot better now.

So you might say that the only way to intercommunion is for Orthodox to abandon their peculiarities and submit 100% to Latin theology (and the Papal dogmas). I might say that the only way to intercommunion is for Papal Catholics to abandon their peculiarities and submit 100% to Orthodox theology.

I wish things could be different, but that’s just how it is .

There is no middle way.

 

[marymol]

Glad that The Shepherd does listen to the voice of The Shepherd and feed those hungry lambs who might be seen as picking the grain on sabbath - he knows they are disciples enough and is doing it from a real need and hunger for Sacramental food… !

‘It is mercy that I desire …:’

and the intercession of the Mother of Mercy can obtain much !

 

[Cecilianus]

I am not going to disagree with you here.

But I have seen a lot of people post here who wish they could go to an Orthodox church and receive communion. Now the Orthodox are very strict about this, no Orthodox person may receive if he has any disagreement with Orthodox doctrine. (In fact, if the person does disagree with Orthodox doctrine, he or she is not really Orthodox.)

It goes without saying then, that any non-Orthodox will be expected to comply as well, and the only way for us to know for sure is for a person to be Chrismated after renouncing any errors taught by their former church. So in fact the person is not a non-Orthodox… we are right back where we started, only communing with the Orthodox.

The Zoghby Initiative is an attempt to find a middle ground, which I admire immensely. But it is not really viable, there has been too much water passed under that bridge. We are, if anything, further apart theologically than we were in the 9th century. This despite the fact that we are getting along together one hell of a lot better now.

So you might say that the only way to intercommunion is for Orthodox to abandon their peculiarities and submit 100% to Latin theology (and the Papal dogmas). I might say that the only way to intercommunion is for Papal Catholics to abandon their peculiarities and submit 100% to Orthodox theology.

I wish things could be different, but that’s just how it is .

There is no middle way.

Hesychios, I was wondering if you could consider a third alternative (which I’m not sure I agree with completely anyway, but just throwing it out for intellectual consideration):

What if we discovered that the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy were (except maybe on some things surrounding the Papacy) completely a matter of misunderstanding of each other’s teaching? That is, if the teachings of Trent etc. were simply different formulations of what Orthodox believe, and vice versa?

Likewise, we both agree that the See of Rome holds primacy in the Church, since the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, the “rock” Christ appointed. I don’t think that the Orthodox don’t really want to be out of communion with Rome any more than Catholics want to be out of communion with the other four patriarchal sees (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria).

And looking back at the unfortunate and disgraceful history of the events surrounding the schism, we see that the only people who were excommunicated in 1054 were the papal legates (whose authority to excommunicate Cerularius was given by a pope who was by that time dead, and in any case wanted them to talk about the tension, not just excommunicate them and walk out) and Cerularius himself (not the entire body of faithful who used the Byzantine rite). The Catholic Church was in communion with many Russian bishops through the 19th century, and canonized a number of Russian saints after the schism (St. Sergius of Radonezh, for example); the Church of Sinai was also in communion with Rome until very late. Finally, the mutual excommunications were mutually revoked in the 1960s.

So why don’t we just conclude that, since schism is an ugly thing and happened pretty much as a historical accident, we can try to repair the effects of schism by entering re-communion with each other (like through the Zoghby initiative)? That doesn’t sound like apostasy to me, for either the Catholic or Orthodox party. Since the faith has been preserved by both parties (except for a de facto reliance on the Orthodox on their own customs without resorting to Rome - but this shouldn’t exclude acknowledgement of Rome’s authority), and nobody intended to go into schism, there really shouldn’t be any need for either personal repentance or conversion.

That was the view that Soloviev (despite his heresies in other regards) and Abbot Mekhitar had of the whole thing.

 

[marymol]

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea2.asp

Possibly the above may be well familiar to many of the regulars here ; thought it nicely summarises the events in the history of East and West …

'Authority ’ may be a word that carries vast areas of fear to many in The East and well understandable from the history , with powers around that has misused same terribly and continue to do so …in this context, the merciful approach of The Church exhorting East to return to what seems familiar and comfortable seems very charitable .

Yet, hope The East would also well recognise the help it has receieved …and contiue to cherish same with a trusting attitude , wanting to discern His will, revealed well in such events of the past too …

Peace !

 

[Siddhartha]

The floor is all yours!

What is my perspective of the Zoghby Initiative?

Less Zoghby. More initiative.