Can ecumenical councils contradict other Councils--Patriarch Gregory of the Melkite Church and Pope Gregory IX

[Jon_Mallory]

I was researching the Melkite Church on wikipedia when I stumbled upon these two paragraphs concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches opposition to papal infallibility. Patriarch Gregory reasoned that it violated the Council of Florence. Here are the paragraphs:

"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.[23] Other members of the anti-infallibilist minority, both from the Latin church and from other Eastern Catholic churches, also left the city.[23]

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.”.[21][24] 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.[25] 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. Leo’s encyclical Orientalium dignitas addressed some of the Eastern Catholic Churches’ concerns on latinization and the centralizing tendencies of Rome.[26] Leo also confirmed that the limitations placed on the Armenian Catholic patriarch by Pius IX’s 1867 letter Reversurus would not apply to the Melkite Church; further, Leo formally recognized an expansion of Patriarch Gregory’s jurisdiction to include all Melkites throughout the Ottoman Empire.[26]"

Perhaps Rome has always had a “hermeneutic of discontinuity”. Anyway, casting Patriarch Gregory to the floor and stepping on his face seems to be the behavior of a tyrant, not a caring pastor.

 

[Vaseljen]

I was researching the Melkite Church on wikipedia when I stumbled upon these two paragraphs concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches opposition to papal infallibility. Patriarch Gregory reasoned that it violated the Council of Florence. Here are the paragraphs:

"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.[23] Other members of the anti-infallibilist minority, both from the Latin church and from other Eastern Catholic churches, also left the city.[23]

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.”.[21][24]** 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.**[25] 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. Leo’s encyclical Orientalium dignitas addressed some of the Eastern Catholic Churches’ concerns on latinization and the centralizing tendencies of Rome.[26] Leo also confirmed that the limitations placed on the Armenian Catholic patriarch by Pius IX’s 1867 letter Reversurus would not apply to the Melkite Church; further, Leo formally recognized an expansion of Patriarch Gregory’s jurisdiction to include all Melkites throughout the Ottoman Empire.[26]"

Perhaps Rome has always had a “hermeneutic of discontinuity”. Anyway, casting Patriarch Gregory to the floor and stepping on his face seems to be the behavior of a tyrant, not a caring pastor.

LOOOL Eastern Orthodox left Rome’s party on time.
Irony is, Melkites left Orthodox Church of Antioch, because Constantinople Church was meddling in to their affairs, then they run to Rome for validation, but they ended up with pope stepping on their patriarch’s head. LOL Poor guys…

 

[808Catholic]

LOOOL Eastern Orthodox left Rome’s party on time.
Irony is, Melkites left Orthodox Church of Antioch, because Constantinople Church was meddling in to their affairs, then they run to Rome for validation, but they ended up with pope stepping on their patriarch’s head. LOL Poor guys…

Further proof that we all sin including the popes.

 

[Vaseljen]

Further proof that we all sin including the popes.

The proof is that popes could not act like that in first millenium when they were in communion with the Eastern Patriarchs and Churches. They were first among equals. Since the Eastern Patriarchs were gone (schism), there was no one to challenge pope’s authority, and popes just went on boosting their authority, they created what they created… Most of the bad popes came after the schism (1054).
Imagine Pope from, for example 5th Ecumenical Council era stepping on the head of another Pope (Patriarch). Emperor would just throw him in to prison… lol

 

[SyroMalankara]

Please research the behaviors between patriarchs and rival patriarchs among Eastern, Oriental and Assyrian Churches before repeating this despotical episode. There are sinners among all of our churches, this is nothing to laugh or gloat about

Furthermore, the popes sin being over prideful does not negate the Orthodox patriarchs attempts (many successful, with political strength) to arrest and assassinate his rivals.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The proof is that popes could not act like that in first millenium when they were in communion with the Eastern Patriarchs and Churches. They were first among equals. Since the Eastern Patriarchs were gone (schism), there was no one to challenge pope’s authority, and popes just went on boosting their authority, they created what they created… Most of the bad popes came after the schism (1054).
Imagine Pope from, for example 5th Ecumenical Council era stepping on the head of another Pope (Patriarch). Emperor would just throw him in to prison… lol

This is an overly simplistic and limited view of the events of the time. Research anticatholic Prince Otto Van Bismarck (Lutheran) and the backlash and reaction from that episode

 

[808Catholic]

The proof is that popes could not act like that in first millenium when they were in communion with the Eastern Patriarchs and Churches. They were first among equals. Since the Eastern Patriarchs were gone (schism), there was no one to challenge pope’s authority, and popes just went on boosting their authority, they created what they created… Most of the bad popes came after the schism (1054).
Imagine Pope from, for example 5th Ecumenical Council era stepping on the head of another Pope (Patriarch). Emperor would just throw him in to prison… lol

Perhaps your point of view might be strengthened if you found “despotic” papal behavior BEFORE the schism. Your claim that the papal “misbehaviors” started after the schism does not mean the schism (initiated by the Orthodox movement) is causal to any alleged “misbehaviors.” If you have resources, please post. If not, kindly refrain from espousing your allegations on a Catholic site. Thank you.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Please research the behaviors between patriarchs and rival patriarchs among Eastern, Oriental and Assyrian Churches before repeating this despotical episode. There are sinners among all of our churches, this is nothing to laugh or gloat about

Furthermore, the popes sin being over prideful does not negate the Orthodox patriarchs attempts (many successful, with political strength) to arrest and assassinate his rivals.

I think I do a service to guests by bringing up the darker aspects of Church history. It is not good for anyone entering the Church to have a naive view of papal history. It is better for people to grapple with the rough patches of Rome’s history before finding out later and becoming disillusioned and potentially bitter. It is interesting to note that in my RCIA classes, nothing is mentioned of the Church’s history unless it makes it look good.

Also, I am asking if there if continuity has been maintained between the Council of Florence and Vatican I, which Patriarch Gregory questioned.

As an aside, I don’t see how researching how patriarchs behaved to one another in the past makes any difference.

 

[Brendan_64]

I think I do a service to guests by bringing up the darker aspects of Church history. It is not good for anyone entering the Church to have a naive view of papal history. It is better for people to grapple with the rough patches of Rome’s history before finding out later and becoming disillusioned and potentially bitter.

Why would someone become bitter if he subsequently finds out that there were popes who were sinners? The pope is a man, the pope is not the Church. There is no guarantee that a pope will be a good man, we have had popes who preached heresy in the past and popes who were great sinners, but they were still valid popes. The Holy Spirit ensures the pope will not fall into error when making infallible pronouncements, but the Holy Spirit does not ensure that the pope does not make wrong statements or preach error, nor will the Holy Spirit ensure that popes are not great sinners.

There can be good popes, bad popes, heretical popes, sinful popes, but they may still be valid popes.The Church is not the pope and the individual pope is not the determiner of Church teaching.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

There can be good popes, bad popes, heretical popes, sinful popes, but they may still be valid popes.The Church is not the pope and the individual pope is not the determiner of Church teaching.

Vatican I states the Pope can promulgate dogma without the Bishops.

 

[Brendan_64]

Vatican I states the Pope can promulgate dogma without the Bishops.

Yes, of course he can, but only under the limited conditions of infallible pronouncements, and for that certain strict conditions must be met. Vatican I laid out those conditions. The pope cannot just go and create dogma as he sees fit.

When the pope preaches or teaches, it does not always follow that what he says is always the mind of the Church. Popes can get things wrong, they can preach errors and they could also preach heresy. To regard all papal statements as infallible is in itself heretical. Papal statements are only infallible when spoken ex cathedra, and that can occur only under strict conditions, and happens extremely rarely.

The notion that the pope determines doctrine and when he speaks all Catholics must regard what he says as the inviolable truth is to misunderstand the role and nature of the papacy. Nor are popes placed up there on a pedestal as a role model for us all to emulate.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Yes, of course he can, but only under the limited conditions of infallible pronouncements, and for that certain strict conditions must be met. Vatican I laid out those conditions. The pope cannot just go and create dogma as he sees fit.

When the pope preaches or teaches, it does not always follow that what he says is always the mind of the Church. Popes can get things wrong, they can preach errors and they could also preach heresy. To regard all papal statements as infallible is in itself heretical. Papal statements are only infallible when spoken ex cathedra, and that can occur only under strict conditions, and happens extremely rarely.

The notion that the pope determines doctrine and when he speaks all Catholics must regard what he says as the inviolable truth is to misunderstand the role and nature of the papacy. Nor are popes placed up there on a pedestal as a role model for us all to emulate.

Just out of curiosity, did the term “ex cathedra” exist before Vatican I? How did this idea germinate?

 

[Brendan_64]

Just out of curiosity, did the term “ex cathedra” exist before Vatican I? How did this idea germinate?

You can find that answer here

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-term-ex-cathedra-mean-and-where-did-the-catholic-church-come-up-with-it

Incidentally there is a very good book (and it is very short as well) on the issue of infallibility. It is called “Magisterial Authority” by Fr. Chad Ripperger.

 

[Vaseljen]

Please research the behaviors between patriarchs and rival patriarchs among Eastern, Oriental and Assyrian Churches before repeating this despotical episode. There are sinners among all of our churches, this is nothing to laugh or gloat about

Furthermore, the popes sin being over prideful does not negate the Orthodox patriarchs attempts (many successful, with political strength) to arrest and assassinate his rivals.

Orthodox Patriarchs never behaved like Popes of Rome, even if they wanted, they could not, because they did not build their Church to have such power. Patriarchs are considered equal bishops who sit in Apostolic thrones and thrones of capital cities. They are the voice of the Church, they have no authority over another bishop. They cant harm another bishop in any way without the support of Holy Synod. Patriarch cant even serve Divine Liturgy on the teritory of another bishop without the approval and blessing of local bishop.

 

[808Catholic]

Vatican I states the Pope can promulgate dogma without the Bishops.

So what specific dogma has been promulgated by a pope without the Bishops???

 

[SyroMalankara]

Orthodox Patriarchs never behaved like Popes of Rome, even if they wanted, they could not, because they did not build their Church to have such power. Patriarchs are considered equal bishops who sit in Apostolic thrones and thrones of capital cities. They are the voice of the Church, they have no authority over another bishop. They cant harm another bishop in any way without the support of Holy Synod. Patriarch cant even serve Divine Liturgy on the teritory of another bishop without the approval and blessing of local bishop.

Are you talking about the ideal or the reality of the actual praxis? History proves this ideal hasn’t been actually met.

 

[Augustine]

Most of the bad popes came after the schism (1054).

This is factually true. There are 82 popes who were canonized saints. Of these, 75 reigned before the Great Schism. Even discounting 48 popes from the first five centuries, when virtually all popes were saints, most through martyrdom, the popes of the second millennium were typically less than holy men.

Christus natus est!

 

[808Catholic]

This is factually true. There are 82 popes who were canonized saints. Of these, 75 reigned before the Great Schism. Even discounting 48 popes from the first five centuries, when virtually all popes were saints, most through martyrdom, the popes of the second millennium were typically less than holy men.

Christus natus est!

In other words, most like you and me.

 

[Augustine]

In other words, most like you and me.

I don’t think so. At least about 3% of the popes since the Great Schism were canonized saints. I’d be glad to think that I have a 3% chance of being a canonized saint, but I’m afraid that my odds are quite lower than that.

Christus natus est!

 

[808Catholic]

I don’t think so. At least about 3% of the popes since the Great Schism were canonized saints. I’d be glad to think that I have a 3% chance of being a canonized saint, but I’m afraid that my odds are quite lower than that.

Christus natus est!

You and me both!!! Yet, through the grace of God, anything is possible!