The One Where I Call Myself A Zoghbyite

There is little that I can say about the double communion advocated by Archbishop Elias, that has not been said with greater sophistication or nuance elsewhere.  After all, I am only a Christian whose opinions about this are consequential for no one other than himself. Furthermore, I am not a member of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, and cannot address in any meaningful way its relationship to the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.

There are, however, a few things I am able to say, and which I think readers of this weblog deserve to know about its author’s mind.  I’m generally irritated by authors who refuse to state their views and allegiances openly but nevertheless attempt to surreptitiously persuade their readers by means of sheathed arguments.  I hope to spare you all of the sensation of being duped over to my dark side.

I am in agreement with Archbishop Elias’ theological views expressed in the writings which I’ve posted here on this site.  I have in mind, first, of all, his acceptance of only the first seven ecumenical councils as being truly ecumenical.  Here, it seems to me, the matter is one mostly of ecclesiological “logic”.  If the Orthodox Churches are true Churches, then how can we consider ecumenical (universal) any council that did not involve them?  If the “two lung” metaphor advocated by the late Pope John Paul II in any way approximates the reality of what the Church is, then I don’t see how it is possible for “one-lunged” councils to be regarded as ecumenical, regardless of how one understands the term oikumene and its derivative.

I’m not saying that councils can only be ecumenical if attended by a “threshold” number of Eastern bishops.  I’m simply pointing out that the synods after the Schism (let’s accept, for now, the textbook date of 1054) failed to be received by four of the five major Patriarchates of the ancient Church.  That the East was left out of these, it seems to me, is quite plain for all to see (no pun intended).  This view, as Archbishop Elias repeatedly points out in his works, is reflected in Pope Paul VI’s speech on the occasion of the seventh centenary of the Second Council of Lyons (1274), in which he referred to the Council as “the sixth of the general synods held in the West” rather than an ecumenical council.  Now, I don’t think Paul VI’s words constitute the point on which Archbishop Elias’ reasoning stands or falls, but I do think that they point to a can of worms which Catholics have yet to fully reckon with.

Archbishop Elias also states several times that the prerogatives and privileges of the Pope of Rome as understood in contemporary Catholicism must not constitute a wall of division between East and West.  Of course, he cannot say this without arguing that the Roman understanding of the papacy must for now be held loosely and re-examined at a council convened by the reunited Churches East and West.  On this matter the Archbishop has the support of no less of a Catholic theologian than Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who, at least in 1982, argued more or less the same position in his Principles of Catholic Theology.  Ratzinger noted that, in the same “bull” by which the Roman delegates excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054, the Emperor and the people of Constantinople were affirmed as “very Christian and orthodox”, even though—here is Ratzinger’s pivotal point—their view of papal primacy was significantly “lower” than that which developed in the West during the second millennium of Christianity, especially that which was set forth by the First Vatican Council in 1870.  This fact of history means that

… Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium.  Rome need not ask for more.  (p. 199)

There is evidence that Ratzinger has since moved away from this position—a change reflected in various documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during his tenure as its Prefect.  Still, insofar as a theologian’s argument can stand on its own merit, later shifts in his thought notwithstanding, I find myself in full agreement with “early Ratzinger”.

The two theses above, in my opinion, open up tremendous possibilities in the dialogue between the East and the West, and afford us a way out of the present theological stalemate with respect to Petrine primacy.  No doubt, my adherence to these positions is largely driven by my own sense of being caught between two sides in the Schism that has lasted far too long.  It seems to me that Archbishop Elias felt the same way.  If that makes me a “Zoghbyite”, I suppose I’ll have to own up as one.  But at least now you know.