ON A ZHOGBIAN DEFINITION OF SCHISM

The Book Cover from Metropolitan Elias Zhogby’s Influential and Important Book

By Bp. Joseph (Ancient Church of the West) 

Introduction

The book “We Are All Schismatics” by Metropolitan Archbishop Elias Zhogby offers a profound theological and historical analysis of the East-West Schism, challenging the prevailing definitions of what constitutes “the One, True Church” and critiquing the way both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have handled the schism. Zhogby’s argument asserts that both sides of the division, having once been in communion, have created doctrinal and theological developments that have only served to deepen the rift between them, leading to theological arrogance, political intrigue, and self-interest. He suggests that true healing of the Church can only come through the abandonment of such divisive theological positions and a return to the original unity and understanding that the Church held in the early centuries.

1. Zhogby’s Thesis: The Historical and Theological Roots of Schism

Historical Context of Schism

Zhogby’s central claim is that the East-West Schism, which formalized in 1054 AD, was not just a result of theological disagreements but was also significantly shaped by political, social, and ecclesiastical factors. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church made developments to their doctrines and liturgical practices that, over time, deepened the division. He emphasizes that the term “schism” refers to a division within the body of the Church that arose out of political, ecclesiastical, and theological controversies. He suggests that both sides have maintained and propagated this schism, using ecclesial authority to justify their own superiority over the other. St. Cyprian of Carthage writes, “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother” (On the Unity of the Church, 6). This illustrates the foundational patristic understanding that schism – whether political, doctrinal, or cultural – ultimately divides the faithful from the true communion of the Church.

2. Zhogby’s Critique of “One, True Church” Definitions

Zhogby criticizes the modern use of the term “One, True Church” by both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. He argues that both have become so attached to these definitions that they no longer represent the historical reality of the undivided Church. In his view, the “One, True Church” of the early Christians – before the East-West schism – was one Church, encompassing all believers, and not two warring ecclesiastical entities vying for supremacy.

Theological and Doctrinal Development as the Root of Schism

Zhogby identifies several key doctrinal developments post-Schism that entrenched each side in its position, reinforcing the idea of exclusive truth, and thus division. These include the Filioque controversy, the nature of the papacy, and the difference in the understanding of original sin, to name a few. By focusing on their own superiority, each side turned inward and refused to acknowledge the other as a legitimate part of the historical Church. St. John Chrysostom writes, “The unity of the Church is like the unity of the body. If one member suffers, the whole body suffers with it.” (Homily on Ephesians 4:1-3). Zhogby underscores this patristic notion to emphasize that the continued division between East and West is a serious ecclesiological problem, one that harms the whole body of Christ.

3. Zhogby’s Call for Theological Purification and Return to Unity

Zhogby’s most radical and controversial proposal is that the Church must abandon all the later doctrinal developments that have reinforced the schism. He proposes that in order to heal the rift between East and West, the Church must return to the theological and cultural positions held by the early Church before political and doctrinal disputes led to division. This involves:

A) Jettisoning Doctrinal Innovations: Zhogby calls for the abandonment of theological formulations such as the Filioque, papal supremacy, and the imposition of new dogmas that arose after the schism. The only way together is to go back to the positions in Christian history where there was unity. Continuous development of doctrine is the primary source of disunity between Churches.

B) Re-establishing a Shared Ecclesiology: He suggests a return to an ecclesiology where the Church is a single body, not divided by modern ecclesial politics, and wherein the authority of the bishops and patriarchs is recognized within a larger framework of unity.

C) Theological and Cultural Renewal: He calls for an embrace of the liturgical, theological, and cultural unity that existed in the early centuries of the Church. This includes a renewed focus on the Fathers of the Church and a deeper commitment to the Scriptures as the foundation of faith, rather than later doctrinal accretions.

In 1 Corinthians 1:10, St. Paul exhorts: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” This call to unity in the early Christian community speaks directly to Zhogby’s call for a restoration of the same mind and judgment in the Church, abandoning the divisions that have been built up over centuries.

4. Reception and Debate of Zhogby’s Thesis

Zhogby’s proposal has sparked a wide range of reactions across the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox worlds.

Roman Catholic Response

The Roman Catholic Church has historically viewed the Filioque clause as a definitive marker of its theological uniqueness, and thus the idea of removing such a doctrine is seen as a direct challenge to the Church’s claim of doctrinal purity and authority. The Vatican has, however, engaged in some dialogue regarding a shared ecclesiology, yet many Roman Catholic scholars remain resistant to fully accept Zhogby’s call for doctrinal revision.

Pope John Paul II addressed the need for unity between East and West in “Ut Unum Sint” (1995), emphasizing the need for mutual respect but upholding certain key doctrinal developments that differ from the Orthodox. Thus, Zhogby’s call for the rejection of such developments was met with resistance, as many within the Roman Catholic Church feel that the acceptance of Zhogby’s thesis would diminish their unique theological identity.

Eastern Orthodox Response

Many within the Eastern Orthodox Church have welcomed Zhogby’s critique of the doctrinal accretions that occurred after the East-West Schism. Some Orthodox theologians see Zhogby’s proposal as an opportunity for reconciliation, but others view it with suspicion, particularly with regards to the issue of papal supremacy. The Orthodox Church has historically resisted any revision to its traditional stance on papal primacy, and some Orthodox theologians argue that the papacy is non-negotiable.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and other prominent Orthodox theologians have expressed support for greater dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church but have also cautioned that doctrinal differences must be addressed with respect to tradition and the conciliar nature of the Church.

Oriental Orthodox Response

Zhogby’s thesis has resonated more strongly with the Oriental Orthodox, who have long been skeptical of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, especially after the Council of Chalcedon (451) and the Christological disputes. The Oriental Orthodox Church shares Zhogby’s critique of doctrinal developments as a source of division, and his call for a return to the unity of the early Church has found more fertile ground here.

The Coptic Orthodox Church and other members of the Oriental Orthodox communion have expressed support for a renewed focus on the ancient ecclesial and theological unity of the early Church, recognizing the importance of healing historical divisions that have persisted since the 5th century.

Assyrian Church of the East Response

The Assyrian Church of the East, though historically separated from both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian communions, has shown a strikingly consonant theological posture with Metropolitan Zoghby’s thesis. The 1994 ”Common Christological Declaration” signed between Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV and Pope John Paul II affirmed that the Church of the East and the Roman Catholic Church share the same faith in Christ, despite historically divergent terminology. This statement, grounded in mutual recognition of apostolic faith, echoes Zoghby’s insistence that post-schism developments in language and emphasis - not the original deposit of faith - are what fractured unity. Further affirming this principle, the Assyrian Church has entered into deep theological and ecclesiological dialogue with the Chaldean Catholic Church, producing in 2017 a document titled “Mutual Recognition of Sacraments”, which permits the sharing of the Eucharist in the absence of a priest from one’s own Church. This functional communion anticipates Zoghby’s vision of restored unity grounded not in institutional uniformity but in shared apostolic faith. Most notably, under the leadership of His Holiness Mar Awa III Royel, the Assyrian Church has engaged in ongoing ecumenical dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, seeking practical steps toward unity without compromising traditional Christological terminology. In all these dialogues, the Assyrian Church affirms that it never accepted the later doctrinal accretions that hardened the schisms, thereby modeling the very ecclesial and theological humility Zoghby advocates. In principle and function, the Assyrian Church under Mar Awa III lives out Zoghby’s vision: upholding the ancient faith, bypassing polemical exclusivism, and embracing the foundational unity of the undivided Church.

Christianity Believes in One God, One Lord, One Church, and One Body of Christ Expressed in the Eucharist and Manifest in the One Baptism that Unites Us. Christ Prayed that We would be One, so This Work is a Priority for All Christian Believers. 

5. Rebuttals and Counterarguments

Some rebuttals to Zhogby’s thesis focus on the practicality of rejecting later theological developments that have come to define the identity of the respective churches. Key counterarguments include:

Doctrinal Integrity: The Roman Catholic Church and many in the Eastern Orthodox Church argue that the theological developments they have embraced are essential for the preservation of the faith and for the clarity of the Church’s teachings. For them, jettisoning doctrines such as the Filioque or papal supremacy would undermine centuries of theological reflection and tradition.

Ecclesial Authority: Some argue that Zhogby’s call for ecclesial reformation might lead to a dilution of authority, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, where the papacy is seen as the guarantor of doctrinal purity and unity, the sole point of convergence between conservative and liberal factions, which would otherwise splinter into separate churches.

Final Conclusion

Metropolitan Zhogby’s work offers a challenging, provocative vision for healing the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches. His thesis calls for a return to a pre-schism ecclesiology, where theological developments that have entrenched divisions are reconsidered. The response from the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox worlds has been mixed, with some seeing hope for reconciliation and others raising significant concerns about the preservation of doctrinal integrity. In the end, Zhogby’s call serves as a reminder of the urgency for a deeper ecclesiological and theological reconciliation that moves beyond political and cultural divides to the foundational unity of the early Church.

COLLECT

O Lord Jesus Christ, who didst pray for them that believe on Thee, that they all may be one; Grant unto Thy whole Church a spirit of humility and charity, that we may cast away the pride of schism and the burden of later divisions, and return unto the unity of the one, holy, and apostolic faith: that as in ancient days we did break one Bread and drink of one Cup, so again may we be made one Body in Thee, our only Head and Saviour. And, we beseech Thee, deliver us from the snares of false ecumenism, which would forge a unity of appearance without the truth of Thy doctrine, the discipline of Thy saints, and the love that is born of Thy Spirit; that we may seek not peace at the price of truth, but that peace which passeth understanding, founded upon Thy Word and the faith once delivered to the saints; Who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.