www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Melkites at Vatican I

The way things the Church has been moving of late, a Pope has to work hard not to get beatified. It's as though the act of election alone is sufficient evidence of sanctity.

StuartK -- I imagine Bismarck’s quip about law and sausages might equally apply to church councils as well . . . I was particularly interested to see that the acknowledged Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem refused to sign Pastor Aeternus as originally drafted given the standing of those patriarchates. Wasn’t there a council that acknowledged (or suggested) some level of consent necessary from these patriarchates before a council could be truly ecumenical?

Apotheoun -- I recently read the Ravenna Document and I thought it was very interesting, particularly the passages concerning the nature of ecumenical councils. I do not think there is any chance that Rome would disown Vatican I outright. The “Melkite qualification,” as I’ve referred to it, might be the only opening that would provide for some revision of the scope of Pastor Aeternus while at the same time allowing Rome to save face.

I agree that Rome probably will not disown Vatican I, but my post was not about what Rome might do; instead, it concerned what would most likely be acceptable to the Eastern Orthodox. That said, it is my opinion that the Eastern Orthodox will never accept the idea that any of the fourteen Latin Church councils are ecumenical, for to do so would overthrow the tradition of the Eastern Fathers.

Can you think of any of the fourteen general councils of the Latin Church that actually concerns them?

Nope, I do not see how any of those local councils of the West apply to the East. Nevertheless, Western Catholics will often claim that the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence concern the East, but - of course - the decrees issued at those Western Councils have been rejected by the Eastern Orthodox.

In both cases, the "reunion" issue was tangential to the main thrust of the synod. In the case of Florence particularly, the invitation to the Byzantines was an afterthought, intended to boost the prestige of the Pope's council versus the conciliarist council being held in Basel at the same time. The real aim of the Council of Florence was to establish the Pope as superior to a general synod, overturning the ruling of the Council of Constance (which ended the Great Western Schism). In both instances, though, the fix was in, and there was no real free exchange of ideas or attempts at mutual understanding; the West took advantage of the distressed condition of the Byzantine Church to impose its will upon it.

Incidentally, I believe the qualifying language employed by the Melkite Patriarch following Vatican I – “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs” – was also employed at Florence. Does anyone know how this clause was understood at Florence?

More significantly, accepting them as ecumenical would be tantamount to accepting the unacceptable proposition that the entire Orthodox communion was in a state of schism from the true church at the time of these "ecumenical" councils.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I think the days of foot kissing are well over and that Rome would never demand of the Orthodox east that the fourteen general councils of the west be accepted as ecumenical as a prerequisite for union. On the other hand, the church of Rome might very well and rightfully insist that the Orthodox accept her faith and practice as orthodox and her primacy as being more than one of honor. I do not think that would overthrow the tradition of the Eastern Fathers or those of the West of whom there are a few.

The Ravenna Statement tacitly implies that there have been no truly "ecumenical" councils since the first millennium, even though the Latin Church held "general synods" that were later (much later) called "ecumenical". The ramifications of this should be apparent to all.

Stuart would you be so kind as to post a link to these statements, I would be interested in reading it.
Stephanos I

May I ask when is the earliest written record of the event where Pio Nono stepped on the head of the Melkite Patriarch? The earliest I could find is a German book by Joseph Hajjar from 1977.

Blessings

Patriarch Jussef was a member of the Congregation de postulatis, the group of 26 bishops responsible for sifting through and presenting to the Pope all the proposals for topics to be dicussed at the Council. Actually, Patriarch Jussef expressed his own belief in the doctrine at the Congregation, insisting that a formal definition on infallibility would hurt relations with the Eastern Orthodox. The most vocal and irrefragible opponent of the definition was Archbishop Rauscher of Vienna.

Blessings

Ravenna Statement [pontificalorientalinstitute.com]

the decrees of Vatican I concering the Pope of Rome were affirmed in Vatican II, in Lumen Gentium. As I recall, there were many Eastern Bishops there who affirmed Lumen Gentium, so the issue of Vatican I is really null considering that it appears that the Eastern Churches have already spoken in the affirmative about the 2nd Ecumenical Council at the Vatican.

Is any Eastern Catholic here going to deny that the teaching of Lumen Gentium does not apply to them or is not binding their particular Church?

LG 22But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.

LG25And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(