www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Are you a Zoghbyist?

Has anyone here read "We are all Schismatics" by Bishop Zoghby? If so what is your opinion?

The translation could have been better, but the message was powerful.

This is a nice sentiment, but the statement means something different to the east and the west, even in the first millenium. In teh first millenium there was, already, a difference in the understanding of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Exactly as I said...
the problem, though, is the a catholic Church is universal so that when we separate what we recognize by only the "Holy Fathers of the East", we have already created the separation.

The Tradition of the Church of the first millenium comes not only from the east but from the west as well. Why are they to be not considered?

I am a semi-Zoghbyist and more of a Ratzingerian. I agree that for a full understanding that both the Eastern and Western Fathers of the Church need to included in any understanding of Primacy of the Bishop of Rome during the first millennium. For to only ask the East to accept what the Eastern Fathers had to say would deny the validity of the Latin Fathers of the first millennium, who by the way are considered Orthodox by the Orthodox.

I believe the answer to the issue of Primacy is some where in the middle between the Eastern and Western Fathers. A Royal path of Primacy that is not to one extreme or the other.

The important thing was, for one thousand years both sides agreed to put that difference aside in the name of Christian unity. The Popes considered unity more important than their perquisites, and the Church of Constantinople considered unity more important than its perquisites, and both sides were able to come to a modus vivendi--imperfect, sometimes fractured, but enduring.

The Church of the First Millennium never knew true unity, but bore witness to it.

Dear Fr. Kimel:

Does the Ratzingerian idea you quoted above include, or affirm, this pontification issued by someone many followed during his arduous journey on the "Road to Rome?"


Amado

Danman,

Which is precisely why the recent theological consultation in Cyprus was unable to produce a definitive document in the time it had allocated. They were seeking to determine just how the doctrine of primacy was formulated and lived in the first millennium, which is proving to be a daunting task.

Let us not forget to pray for the ultimate success of this endeavor.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Not that my opinion means much, but I think that both sides need to move. I don't think that it's a matter of one side being right and one side being wrong. I think it is a matter of the east accpting the legitimate development of doctrine as Ratzinger said, and the west accepting that the primacy does not mean that it can do whatever it wants. The way that the Roman curia handles the west cannot be the model for the way it relates to the east upon unification.

In other words, the east has to recognize the wisdom of the first brother, and the west needs to recognize that it need not insert itself into the affairs of the east like it does in the west. the east can function just fine without having to go to Rome for everything. This would probably necessitate a change in canon law.

I think that is the wrong term--papal supremacy might a better term. The Popes throughout the Middle Ages actively opposed attempts to assign infallibility to the papal office--because they did not want to be bound by the decisions of their predecessors.

Now, what we see emerging from the 11th century onward is a revitalized Roman Church very much influenced by the centralizing reforms of Cluniac monasticism, and with it a tendency to see the Church as one gigantic monastery, with the Pope as the universal abbot. That represented a radical departure to how the office (and the Church) was seen by Popes of the first millennium--even the most assertive, such as Leo the Great and Gregory the Great.

While it is probably impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube, it is possible to recapture--as both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have attempted--to redefine the papal office as a ministry of service, rather than in terms of supremacy. Doing so will be a long and incremental process, but one that will be immeasurably aided by the active participation of the Orthodox in a creative and constructive manner.

That's a hint, boys.

While I was Eastern Catholic I would have said yes, I subscribe to the Zoghby Proposal.



I think this is an important point. The two views were there. No one can read Pope St. Leo or Pope St. Gregory without realizing this -- and these are still considered today as Orthodox saints. Fr. Cleenewerck (an OCA priest) makes a good point, I believe, on page 214-215 of His Broken Body [books.google.com] that this divergence of view in the first millennium was a "theologoumenon" or an "acceptable opinion":


And certainly there was a growth of Roman claims since the first millennium. Did Pope St. Leo and Pope St. Gregory envision the micro-management that the later papacy would develop or the concept of an Eastern Congregation to deal with the Eastern Churches? Or, even the full-blown concept of papal infallibility that Vatican I espouses?

Considering this, would it be fair to require that Orthodox accept the full development of these Roman claims?

The flip side, however, is this: what is the truth of the matter?

Can the two views co-exist today: the full-blown development of the Roman primacy as has existed since the Schism along with the Vatican I understanding of papal infallibility? Along with a real primacy that serves the Church, but is subordinated to the College of Bishops in Ecumenical Council?

Can we go back to the way it was in the first millennium or must we come to a common understanding of what primacy and conciliarity means?

Russian Orthodoxy Study on Primacy in the First Millennium

For the three years previous to Cyprus the Russian Orthodox Church had a Commission studying the question of primacy in the first millennium Church. We know from Archbishop Hilarion that this report was presented to the members of the International Theological Commission at the beginning of the meeting on Cyprus.

This report would be of great interest but nobody has "leaked" it. Pity. I for one would love to read it. It is all the more interesting because it is not simply the report of a single theologian but an official study in the name of the Russian Orthodox Church.

I think the issue is one that MUST be resolved for unification, tho not of need for full communion; the Catholic goal has always been for unification.

in fact, the reason I consider myself semi-Zoghbyist is that I can't accept the ecclesiology of the EO.

And the Orthodox have given enough hints of their own, dear Stuart.

I have provided statements from the Russians and the Serbs over the last few days. Alexandr has given a wonderful Greek monograph on the topic.

There is no such entity as "the papal office." It would not matter if it were oriented towards supreme authority or supreme service. There is just no such thing. There is nothing higher than the episcopal office. Other structures such as metropolises, patriarchates, etc. are simply administrative. They can be created, they can be suppressed, They can come and go.

I think that Metropolitan John (Zizoulis') critique of the "pure" Eucharistic ecclesiology of Nicholas Afanasiev addresses most of the errors in your post, Father.