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

I have a few questions about the Melkites at Vatican I. Perhaps some of you have some thoughts on this topic.

I understand the Melkite Patriarch refused to ratify Pastor Aeternus as promulgated at Vatican I. Instead, he assented to it only with the qualification “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs.” What is the significance of this qualification? How has it been interpreted? How has the Melkite qualification been received by other Catholic Churches?

Would the Melkite qualification satisfy Orthodox criticisms of Vatican I? Could the Melkite qualification play some role in overcoming the burden Vatican I has played in frustrating Catholic-Orthodox reunion?

I do not think that the Melkite approach taken at the First Vatican Council sufficiently safeguards a proper understanding of the nature of primacy within synodality.

A better way to proceed can be found in the working document of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church which - like the Ravenna Document [sites.google.com] before it - situates primacy within synodality, while refusing to place the protos within the episcopate over the other bishops. The text of the commission's working document is available at the link below:

The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium [chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it]

He wasn't the only one. A large number of anti-infalliblist bishops departed the council before the vote was taken, the fix being in. It was a rump synod that approved Pastor aeternus, and so shaky was its legitimacy that Pius IX insisted all bishops must sign a profession of faith endorsing it. But many of the absentee bishops did not do so for several years, and a number never bothered at all. None of these "dissidents" was deposed or replaced, so it would appear Pio Nono knew just how far he could push things without sparking a rebellion.

The Patriarch in question is Gregory II Joseph, of blessed memory, whose mortal remains are buried within the Altar of Damascus Cathedral. It is true that he left Vatican I before the final vote. A papal representative later called upon the Patriarch, to "request" his signature to Pastor Aeternus.

The Patriarch thereupon immediately summoned all the other members of the Holy Synod. Taking his pen, he wrote in the "escape clause" of the Council of Florence: "saving all the rights and privileges of the Patriarchs of the East" and signed his name under it. The remaining hierarchs of the Holy Synod then added their signatures directly under the Patriarch's signature.

This did not please the papal representative, but it was the best he was going to get. When Patriarch Gregory Joseph next visited Pius IX a shocking scene ensued, which is best left undescribed here.

Fr. Serge

Stuart that is very rude!

I am aware, but don't know all the info. There are many that read this forum who don't have the life history and are converts always learning, like myself.

Also, with all of his involvement in the things has great expertise and hands on, that most of can't imagine. Fr. Serge takes a tremendous amount of his time to answer questions here. I for one, truly appreciate all he does.

Thank you Fr. Serge!

Agreed. Comments will be deleted.

[/quote]I am aware, but don't know all the info. There are many that read this forum who don't have the life history and are converts always learning, like myself.[/quote]

Alice, here is the incident Stuart alluded to, from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkit...rticipation_at_the_First_Vatican_Council

Gregory was also a prominent proponent of Eastern ecclesiology at the First Vatican Council. In the two discourses he gave at the Council on May 19 and June 14, 1870 he insisted on the importance of conforming to the decisions of the Council of Florence, of not creating innovations such as papal infallibility, but accepting what had been decided by common agreement between the Greeks and the Latins at the Council of Florence, especially with regard to the issue of papal primacy.[19] He was keenly aware of the disastrous impact that the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility would have on relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church and emerged as a prominent opponent of the dogma at the Council.[20] He also defended the rights and privileges of the patriarchs according to the canons promulgated by earlier ecumenical councils. Speaking at the Council on May 19, 1870, Patriarch Gregory asserted:

The Eastern Church attributes to the pope the most complete and highest power, however in a manner where the fullness and primacy are in harmony with the rights of the patriarchal sees. This is why, in virtue of and ancient right founded on customs, the Roman Pontiffs did not, except in very significant cases, exercise over these sees the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction that we are asked now to define without any exception. This definition would completely destroy the constitution of the entire Greek church. That is why my conscience as a pastor refuses to accept this constitution.[21]

Patriarch Gregory refused to sign the Council's dogmatic declaration on papal infallibility. He and the seven other Melkite bishops present voted non placet at the general congregation and left Rome prior to the adoption of the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus on papal infallibility.[22] Other members of the anti-infallibilist minority, both from the Latin church and from other Eastern Catholic churches, also left the city.[22]

After the First Vatican Council concluded an emissary of the Roman Curia was dispatched to secure the signatures of the patriarch and the Melkite delegation. Patriarch Gregory and the Melkite bishops subscribed to it, but with the qualifying clause of the used at the Council of Florence attached: "except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs.".[20][23] He earned the enmity of Pius IX for this; during his next visit to the pontiff Gregory was cast to the floor at Pius' feet by the papal guard while the pope placed his foot on the patriarch's head.[24] Despite this, Patriarch Gregory and the Melkite Catholic Church remained committed to their union with the Church of Rome. Relationships with the Vatican improved following the death of Pius IX and the subsequent election of Leo XIII as pontiff.

Thank you, James, for kindly posting this account. As one of "everybody" I did not know this and it saved me the time of searching the archives.

I have heard this story before and have always found it a little problematic to envisage.

What I think probably happened was that when Patriarch Gregory went to do homage to the Pope by kissing his foot (one actually kissed the cross which was on his pontifical slippers) Pius pulled his foot and pushed him away.

Not much better I suppose, but there we are.

As it happens the "softer" version of the episode of Pius IX and Patriarch Gregory Joseph is impossible, because the Greek-Catholic Patriarch was never accustomed to kiss the Pope's foot. In the run-up to Vatican II, Patriarch Maximos IV of holy memory urged that this custom be abolished completely, since putting the cross on someone's shoe was scandalous in the East.

On the other hand (or the other foot!) life went on and between the accession of Leo XIII and the run-up to Vatican II there were some bizarre developments.

The usual way to photograph the Pope, the Patriarch, and the Holy Synod was to have the Pope and the Patriarch seated next to each other, and the remaining hierarchs stand beside and behind them in a semi-circle. But this made someone nervous, and the next move was to have the Pope's chair on a raised platform with the Patriarch standing on the raised platform next to the Pope.

This too made the ultra-papalists nervous. So the following move was to have the Pope seated in the chair on the raised platform, the Patriarch standing next to the Pope - but on the floor - and the Patriarch instructed to place one foot on the Pope's raised platform! I actually have this gem of a photograph.

A much rarer photograph shows Patriarch Joseph the Confessor (Kiev-Halych and All Rus) kissing the foot of Blessed John XXIII. It was taken at their first meeting the day after Patriarch Joseph arrived from Soviet imprisonment. Blessed John tried to stop him, but the Patriarch replied that he had waited eighteen years to kiss the Pope's foot and would not be deprived of his opportunity.

Selah.

Father Serge

Pope Paul VI, of happy memory, must have been aware of all this nonsense when he broke rank, shocked and scandalized the papal entourage, and kissed the feet of Metropolitan Meliton of Chalcedon on December 5, 1975. I miss this holy man.

I've been wondering how Pope Pius IX managed to get beatified.
I may be mistaken (as if THAT's something new) but I understand he was beatified together with Pope John XXIII.

Christ is Risen!!

I wonder about a lot of things, too. I chalk it up to the mysterious ways in which the Holy Spirit works. Then I take the position of every good soldier--keep my head down and my mouth shut; then slog on.

Bob

Yes, by Pope John Paul II on September 3, 2000.


Not surprisingly, many conservative Catholics are wondering how John XXIII managed to get beatified!

The move might be seen as political or pastoral (or both), but there seems to have been an intent to "balance" one with the other. (In a similar move, Pope Benedict last December declared both Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II "venerable.")


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I also heard one example where the pope put his foot on the head of the Patriarch and said "disobedient".

But I never heard of the Pope's guard throwing anyone down on the ground in front of the Pontiff.

In the film of the coronation of John XXIII, I did see the "Greek" deacon after chanting the Epistle, kneel down and kiss the Pope's shoe.