www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Melkite-Antiochian agreement: why not ...

Hi all.

It seems safe to say that the Zoghby Initiative isn't going to be accepted by the Antiochian Orthodox in the immediate future. This makes me wonder: wouldn't it make sense (without giving up on the Zoghby Iniative) to try a slightly more modest proposal?

When I say more modest (than dual-communion) I'm thinking of something along the lines of the 1991 agreement between the Antiochian Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox, including:
"3) The refraining from accepting members of one Church in the membership of the other whatever the reasons might be."

Nope.

On the face of it, the Zoghby initiative appears as an ecumenical "breakthrough."

In fact, it is a confession of the Orthodox Faith, plain and simple.

Anyone who accepts the Zoghby confession of faith is asserting that he or she is Orthodox. To adhere to that confession is to deny papal infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction.

The real issue is why those who confess the Zoghby statement haven't already gone over to Orthodoxy or "doxed" as the contemporary Orthodox converts say.

They are already Orthodox in spirit.

Alex

I really enjoy it when other people tell me who I am and what I ought to do. Basically, Alex has cast his de facto excommunication upon the present and two past Melkite Patriarchs of Antioch, almost the entire Melkite synod, and by extension, all the clergy and people of the Melkite Church who are faithful to their hierarchs.

As to Papal infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction, if (a) the Pope really needs it, then he isn't who he thinks he is; and (b) if it's not up for discussion, we should simply cease all discussions, since there is only ONE substantive issue dividing the Churches. Meanwhile, I'll listen to Patriarch Gregorios and Bishop Nicholas. At least, as a Melkite, I don't have to deal with a Church that suffers from multiple personality disorder.

Dear Stuart,

If I had any power to excommunicate anyone, I would level it at Sergei/the Young Fogey for telling people not to trust anything I write!

Please don't impute motive into what I said.

To confess the Zoghby initiative is to confess Orthodoxy plain and simple. Am I wrong?

If WE, (you and I) confess the Zoghby initiative, which we do, why aren't we formally members of the Orthodox Catholic Church?

What separates us, in this respect, from Orthodoxy - other than our refusal to formally join it?

And to confess the Zoghby initiative is to formally reject the reasons why we remain separated from Orthodoxy and in union with Rome.

I am open to the Zoghby confession. But I also want to deal with realities.

We can't have it both ways, as the Zoghby initiative seems to want to have it.

No question of anyone being excommunicated here. We continue to work out our identity.

I'm not telling you who you are. I'm telling you who I am not.

Sorry for upsetting you.

Alex

I wouldn't exactly call that "the real issue", but rather a question that leads to clarification of the meaning of the Zoghby Initiative. Or to look at it another way, the meaning is clarified by the fact that Melkites would like to be in communion with both ... not to switch from communion-with-Rome to communion-with-Orthodoxy.

[Linked Image] That's just what I was thinking, in starting this thread.

Dear Peter - you Rock!

Certainly, not all Melkite Greek-Catholics would agree with the Zoghby initiative. And there are other EC's who are not Melkite who would want to be associated with the Zoghby initiative as well.

The "reality" here is the ecclesial reality. Those who are with the Zoghby initiative and are serious about it cannot claim to be in communion with Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy doesn't recognize them to be "Orthodox" in the canonical, ecclesial sense at all.

Whenever I've asked such "Orthodox in communion with Rome" about this fact, the only answer I've ever gotten is, "I don't care whether Orthodoxy does or not etc." That isn't a serious answer.

At the same time, would Rome acknowledge the Zoghby initiative to be a confession of faith of a Catholic in union with Rome? Not on your life. And that too is a fact which cannot be bypassed with yet another, "I don't care . . ."

Can an Eastern Catholic tell Rome under what conditions he or she will be in union with it when it comes to matters of faith i.e. "de fide?" Don't think so.

Can an Eastern Catholic tell Orthodoxy that he or she is "Orthodox" but accepts Rome within a perspective that neither Rome nor Orthodoxy would see as valid? What do you think?

Am I telling Stuart who he is? Stuart is so intelligent and educated that he does not need me or anyone telling him anything.

If I have said anything here that does not reflect reality, whether we like it or not, please feel free to hurl the first stone.

Alex

I think we could learn something from the Antiochian Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox. Their proposal -- well, not just a proposal at this point, but an actual agreement -- was more realistic and it made something happen. (That's not to say that the Zoghby Initiative doesn't have value. It make it clear where the Melkite Church stands (IIRC only two bishops didn't sign on to it) but I don't see it being accepted by the AO.)

What is the difference between the Syriac-Antiochian Agreement vs. the Syriac Orthodox-Catholic Agreement, or the Armenian Apostolic-Catholic Agreement?

Well, I guess you know better than Patriarch Gregorios. Whom an I to argue?

Apart from "Orthodox in communion with Rome" doing a lot of posturing and "pretending" to be Orthodox, it matters not what any Patriarch would say in this respect.

It matters if Orthodoxy affirms that the Zoghby initiative is something that establishes full communion between it and those EC's who adhere to it.

The litmus test with respect to the validity of the Zoghby initiative is whether Orthodoxy would accept such "initiative takers" to Communion at the Divine Liturgy.

If not, and of course not, then it's all EC "la-la land."

No matter who knows more or who is higher on the EC hierarchical pecking order.

Alex

Well, for one, "The refraining from accepting members of one Church in the membership of the other whatever the reasons might be." That's pretty significant.

P.S. If even that is to radical to start with, then what about just an agreement not to receive any priests from the "other side"?

There is a problem with refusing to accept members of one Church into another--freedom of conscience. True belief cannot be coerced, and refusal to accept someone who sincerely wants to be admitted of his own free will is indeed a form of coercion. That is why the Catholic Church, though it rejects proselytization of the the Orthodox, will not refuse an Orthodox Christian who, of his own free will, wishes to be received into the Catholic Church. And note, such persons are neither re-baptized nor chrismated, but received by a simple profession of faith--which is a tacit acknowledgment that the Orthodox Church, though separated from the Church of Rome, is indeed part of the Catholic Church.