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

I suppose one could say that Vatican II was not defining Papal infalibility itself. (Indeed, it was a "pastoral" council and did not define anything -- am I correct in that?) Instead, it was restating the general definition set forth at Vatican I. Therefore, the Melkite qualification of the scope of Papal infalibility at Vatican I might, arguably, remain in place.

But, the issue is beyond my pay grade . . .

Danman,

I don't really know what to say about these statements, except to point out that every pope since Vatican II has been strongly in favor of an eventual reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches--not a conversion of the Orthodox to Catholicism. These statements, therefore, must be understood in that light. It is clear enough that these statements are incompatible with Orthodox ecclesiology ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Deacon Richard,

These statements, therefore, must be understood in that light. It is clear enough that these statements are incompatible with Orthodox ecclesiology ...

If they are incompatible, I wonder how the Eastern Bishops understood them as they voted in favor of Lumen Gentium?

Also, it becomes a question of how much latitude can be given in interpreting these passages? But there is no denying that this is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, not the Latin Rite Church alone.

If an Eastern Catholic is going to offer another way of viewing this, then it must be done in a way that can be reconciled to the way that the Pope of Rome views this. I don't deny that a variation of interpretations can occur, but there must be a way to reconcile both views.

I realize that Vatican II was meant as a pastoral council, but there is no way of getting around these as solid foundations of Catholic ecclesiology.

I cannot personally see how an Eastern Catholic could reconcile the views given with the conciliar teaching of the Church. it seems like there has to be quite a bit of intelllectual gymnastics to do it. (i don't mean that in a condescending way, so I apologize if that came off sounding negative toward any Eastern Catholic here. I do not intend to insult anyone.)

I wonder if any Eastern bishops actually voted placet and not non placet when the vote came up. Remember that Vatican II was the first council that did not require a unanimous agreement on each and every document promulgated. Prior to that, every council required unanimous agreement and and those who did not agree left the communion of those who did. That's how the Old Catholic Church came to be in Europe in the 19th century, for example.

Bob

Bob

So, what you are saying is only Rome gets to pick and choose which canons of which councils it is going to recognize?

Dear Theophan,

The contents of those paragraphs from LG are basically repeated in the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops. Of the 2,322 voting bodies present, there were 2,319 placet and 2 non placet votes for the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops.

To be clear, no single bishop from V1 participated in any sort of schism.

Blessings

Dear brother StuartK,

I believe brother Theophan means that as head bishop, the Pope's input cannot be simply ignored. Besides, brother Theophan used the words "reconciled to," not "overridden by."

Blessings

Certainly it cannot be ignored. However, if the Church of Rome can decide it will not abide by particular canons of an Ecumenical Council while abiding by others, why cannot other Churches do precisely the same thing? While "all Churches are equal in grace and dignity", it would seem that some Churches are more equal than others.

Dear brother Stuart,

Can you be more specific? What canons are you talking about?

Blessings

Rome rejected several of the canons of both Constantinople I and Chalcedon which established the taxis among the Churches--in part because Constantinople was ranked first after Rome, and in part because the Council based its ordering on the principle of accommodation (i.e., ecclesiastical structures mirror secular ones). Rome later rejected several the canons of the Quinisextunct Council, then rejected wholesale the canons of the Synod of 879-880--despite having accepted them for several centuries. In the second millennium, Rome first accepted then rejected the canons of the Council of Constance that decreed Popes were subject to a general synod--though they relied on that very canon to end the Great Western Schism.

There are other examples, but these ought to suffice for now.

Dear brother Stuart,

WHEW! I thought you were talking about a dogmatic canon.

Thank God that Rome tried to preserve the Nicene Tradition against the pretensions of secular rulers! To this day, the Catholic Church maintains that the prominence of the Apostolic Sees results from their apostolic foundation, not because of any socio-political factor. ISTM that Rome was finally able to canonically acknowledge the place of Constantinople because Constantinople finally started appealing to its own apostolic foundation, instead of its status as the new capital of the empire.

I don't see how a Council held over 10 years after the Sixth Council can be considered part of the Sixth Council. The Quinisext was always regarded as a local Council of the East, so I don't see how this is an example of Rome rejecting a canon of an Ecumenical Council.

I don't find the current evidence and rhetoric that the 879 Synod was accepted by the West convincing at all.

When you say "Rome," are speaking of the legitimate Popes or the anti-Popes?

From what I understand, the Popes at the time all willfully abdicated - not that they were deposed by a Council.

Blessings

Really? The scholarly consensus since Dvornik's work in the late 1940s says it was. And Dvornik was a Latin Dominican.

The whole point of the Council of Florence was to reverse the Council of Constance--which it did.


They resigned because the Council expressed its supremacy and required them to resign.

One Pope at Constance resigned voluntarily; another Pope at Constance was deposed, and the third Pope was beyond the practical reach of the Council. He declined to resign, despite the pleas of the Western Emperor that he should do so for the good of the Church.

To this very day, the Church does not require us to accept the claims of this, that, or the other Pope of the time of Constance - I rather like Pope Benedict, aka Pedro de Luna myself.

I have no idea what this has to do with the Melkite Greek-Catholics at Vatican I!

Fr. Serge

Merely that the mechanistic understanding of conciliar authority leaves much to be desired. The history of the councils and synods of the Church is not nearly as straightforward as most people think, and the legalistic view of Church authority is generally applied only when convenient for one or more of the parties involved. That's a fancy way of saying a council means what particular Churches interpret it to mean.

Stuart,

So, what you're really saying is that despite more than 1200 years of affirming itself to be an absolute monarchy--in which disobedience to the Pope was equivalent to disobedience to God--the fact remains that in practice, even the Latin Church was never really an absolute monarchy!

(Which only goes to prove that Christ, its founder and true head, never intended it to be so.)