Did Bl. Pius IX really do this?

[Rogerteder]

“**Showing mercy” ? If that is mercy, what is genocide - heroic charity ? Why ever not ? **​

**But that’s fine - until not being nice comes round to bite those who defend it . (Some) Protestants take a similar view - they are not often (let’s make that “never”) praised for the love they show to Catholics by behaving badly to them; on the contrary, their bad behaviour is wheeled out as evidence of how unChristian they are If they aren’t defended by quoting that episode from the gospels, why should Catholics be, or Popes, or a beatified Pope ? Or are we to apply one moral standard to other Christians, a second to us Catholics generally, & a third to beatified Popes ? If so - on what moral basis ? **

Why should Pius IX be held to a low standard ? A beatified Pope should not behave like a thug: no “average” Christian should either: if he did as stated, it is at least unfortunate that Christians other than he have to be held to account for it. That’s the problem with stuff others do - they may not be held to account for it, but later generations often are, when the “stuff others do” has ceased to look as admirable, or even defensible, as it may have seemed when it was done.

It is one’s subjective opinion that Pius IX’s actions were “thuggish.” At times it is appropriate to physically assault someone. As our Lord did when he cleansed the temple. Was Pius IX justified? I don’t know. Could he have been right? Sure!!! Could he have been wrong? Sure. I would be very sympathetic to the vicar of Christ especially since he has been beatified.

 

[eelpis]

Another canonized saint litterally beat up those who refused to listen to or mocked his preaching. St Louis Mary de Montfort.The author of “True Devotion”
If Pio Nono did what is alledged I think those on the recieveing end deserved it. There is nothing unsaintly in using force to drive home a lesson. besides I always liked the more passionate Saints.

 

[malphono]

… If Pio Nono did what is alledged I think those on the recieveing end deserved it. There is nothing unsaintly in using force to drive home a lesson. besides I always liked the more passionate Saints.

If Pio Nono did what is alleged, (and I don’t know if it’s true any more than you do … neither of us was in the room), then yes, I’m sure that venerable Patriarchs of the Holy Church deserved to be physically abused.

Further, using that logic, perhaps the Melkite and Armenian Patriarchs should have been beaten to bloody pulps. That surely would have driven home the lesson. (And would probably have also driven the Melkites and Armenian Catholics back into Orthodoxy.)

 

[eelpis]

If Pio Nono did what is alleged, (and I don’t know if it’s true any more than you do … neither of us was in the room), then yes, I’m sure that venerable Patriarchs of the Holy Church deserved to be physically abused.

Further, using that logic, perhaps the Melkite and Armenian Patriarchs should have been beaten to bloody pulps. That surely would have driven home the lesson. (And would probably have also driven the Melkites and Armenian Catholics back into Orthodoxy.)

Thanks to a good beating they remained Catholic.

That’s what happend to the ones that St De Monfort beat up.

 

[malphono]

Thanks to a good beating they remained Catholic.

That’s what happend to the ones that St De Monfort beat up.

:banghead: :banghead:

 

[JMJ_coder]

One thing needs to be clarified. Many here are saying, whether he deserved it or not, it wasn’t right to step on that poor old man’s head.

The poor old man is what needs to be clarified. Whether this allegation is true or not, Patriarch Gregory II Youssef was not some fragile decrepit invalid. He was born in 1823, so at the time of the Vatican I Council he was only 47!

 

[JMJ_coder]

This allegation is way too vague for me to take seriously.

It’s so nice how there isn’t any specific date - not even a specific approx. date. I have seen it from during the Council, to immediately after when the Patriarchs signature was “forced”, to the next time the Patriarch was in Rome, etc.

How did this come about? Some accounts state that the Patriarch was kneeling to kiss the Pope’s foot (since the Pope himself was getting on in years at this time, if it were true could it have been the Pope mis-stepping? the Pope did have such issues earlier in life, they could have come back in later life). The most humorous (they would be if the accuser wasn’t serious) is that the poor Patriarch was dragged back to Rome and forced down by the Pope’s henchmen (um…oh…I mean Guard).

Did the Pope step on his neck, head, slap him around, etc?

The allegations are way to vague and contradictory to be anything more than a fairy tale, as far as I’m concerned. Even the Melkite sources I’ve seen only relate that some “historians” allege such.

 

[malphono]

One thing needs to be clarified. Many here are saying, whether he deserved it or not, it wasn’t right to step on that poor old man’s head.

The poor old man is what needs to be clarified. Whether this allegation is true or not, Patriarch Gregory II Youssef was not some fragile decrepit invalid. He was born in 1823, so at the time of the Vatican I Council he was only 47!

If (and I repeat if) the accounts are correct, I see little practical difference in the Patriarch’s age. Whether he was 47 or 87, he was still Melkite Patriarch.

This allegation is way too vague for me to take seriously.

It’s so nice how there isn’t any specific date - not even a specific approx. date. I have seen it from during the Council, to immediately after when the Patriarchs signature was “forced”, to the next time the Patriarch was in Rome, etc.

How did this come about? Some accounts state that the Patriarch was kneeling to kiss the Pope’s foot (since the Pope himself was getting on in years at this time, if it were true could it have been the Pope mis-stepping? the Pope did have such issues earlier in life, they could have come back in later life). The most humorous (they would be if the accuser wasn’t serious) is that the poor Patriarch was dragged back to Rome and forced down by the Pope’s henchmen (um…oh…I mean Guard).

Did the Pope step on his neck, head, slap him around, etc?

The allegations are way to vague and contradictory to be anything more than a fairy tale, as far as I’m concerned. Even the Melkite sources I’ve seen only relate that some “historians” allege such.

I won’t go so far as to dismiss the accounts as a “fairy tale.” It could be that, or it could be a case where the official history is the “edited version” that reflects what those in charge wanted it to reflect. As I said earlier in post #43, we were not in the room, so we’ll never know.

But at the same time, most such tales have at least some basis in fact.

 

[JMJ_coder]

If (and I repeat if) the accounts are correct, I see little practical difference in the Patriarch’s age. Whether he was 47 or 87, he was still Melkite Patriarch.

I wasn’t making any excuses or defenses, only clarifying what seems to be the prevelant assumption here (no doubt what the manufacturers of this possible myth want to portray) that the Patriarch was a fragile, decrepit, and feeble old man. He wasn’t at the time of this alleged incident. That is my only point with that.

I won’t go so far as to dismiss the accounts as a “fairy tale.” It could be that, or it could be a case where the official history is the “edited version” that reflects what those in charge wanted it to reflect. As I said earlier in post #43, we were not in the room, so we’ll never know.

But at the same time, most such tales have at least some basis in fact.

I perused through a biography of Blessed Pius XI published the year that he died (1878). It is a fairly comprehensive biography and it doesn’t at all mention this alleged incident.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I perused through a biography of Blessed Pius XI published the year that he died (1878). It is a fairly comprehensive biography and it doesn’t at all mention this alleged incident.

Did you really think they would mention it?

 

[JMJ_coder]

I perused through a biography of Blessed Pius XI published the year that he died (1878). It is a fairly comprehensive biography and it doesn’t at all mention this alleged incident.

Did you really think they would mention it?

Why wouldn’t they, if it really happened?

 

[osmond]

Apparently, at the end of Vatican I, when the Greek Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef advanced to kiss the feet of the Pontiff, His Holiness stepped on the Patriarch’s neck with his full weight, and verbally berated him, calling him “a stubborn mule”. If this is true, well, my respect for Pius decreased.

Some people need to stop and think. The First Vatican Council closed in what, 1870? If such an incident actually happened it would have immediately made its way to the secular press even here in the United States. (If it never happened or if the information was buried by the Church, it wouldn’t even be an urban legend today) There were a great many papers here and in Europe that would have loved to print such a story.

Did they? What does the actual historical record say? I don’t know but someone should check before perpetuating what appears to be another urban legend.

 

[malphono]

…I perused through a biography of Blessed Pius XI published the year that he died (1878). It is a fairly comprehensive biography and it doesn’t at all mention this alleged incident.

That’s quite what I meant. As bpbasilphx says:

bpbasilphx:

Did you really think they would mention it?

Many such bios of heads of state and other persons of note (and Pio Nono was certainly the latter, if not, at the end, the former) often expunged or ignored things that were unflattering. (I venture to say that’s still true, but probably less so these days.)

At the risk of repeating myself, (well, I am repeating myself, but never mind that) not one of us was there as an eye witness, so we’ll never know for sure. As I said before, most such tales have at least some basis in fact.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Many such bios of heads of state and other persons of note (and Pio Nono was certainly the latter, if not, at the end, the former) often expunged or ignored things that were unflattering. (I venture to say that’s still true, but probably less so these days.)

At the risk of repeating myself, (well, I am repeating myself, but never mind that) not one of us was there as an eye witness, so we’ll never know for sure. As I said before, most such tales have at least some basis in fact.

I think everyone here should give Blessed Pius IX the benefit of the doubt. There has not been one single shred of evidence for this alleged assault other than hearsay that made its first appearance 100 years after the supposed fact. It’s calumny on the part of the accusers as far as I’m concerned.

 

[malphono]

I think everyone here should give Blessed Pius IX the benefit of the doubt. There has not been one single shred of evidence for this alleged assault other than hearsay that made its first appearance 100 years after the supposed fact. It’s calumny on the part of the accusers as far as I’m concerned.

If it were Benedict XV or Pius XI, e.g., under discussion, I would most certainly give the benefit of the doubt. Even the thought of an assault (or physical altercation, or whatever wants to call it) would have been totally out of character for either of them. But it’s not. Rather it is Pius IX that we’re talking about, and we all know that Pio Nono was, if nothing else, a very determined man. That’s not an allegation: there is plenty of factual history to support it.

No, I agree that there’s no evidence that the alleged incident(s) took place. At the same time, though, there is no evidence that it (they) did not take place. There are no eye-witness accounts to either confirm or deny (at least none that we yet know of under the eye witnesses names). So, irrespective of the year of their appearance, the stories could be true, in whole or in part. My guess is that, if (and again I emphasize if) the stories are true, they are most likely partly so.

I don’t see that there is really any harm in discussing what amounts to a possibility.To be calumny (or slander, for that matter) it would have to be a false statement. None us (not one) knows for sure. And none of will ever know for sure.

 

[eelpis]

If it were Benedict XV or Pius XI, e.g., under discussion, I would most certainly give the benefit of the doubt. Even the thought of an assault (or physical altercation, or whatever wants to call it) would have been totally out of character for either of them. But it’s not. Rather it is Pius IX that we’re talking about, and we all know that Pio Nono was, if nothing else, a very determined man. That’s not an allegation: there is plenty of factual history to support it.

No, I agree that there’s no evidence that the alleged incident(s) took place. At the same time, though, there is no evidence that it (they) did not take place. There are no eye-witness accounts to either confirm or deny (at least none that we yet know of under the eye witnesses names). So, irrespective of the year of their appearance, the stories could be true, in whole or in part. My guess is that, if (and again I emphasize if) the stories are true, they are most likely partly so.

I don’t see that there is really any harm in discussing what amounts to a possibility.To be calumny (or slander, for that matter) it would have to be a false statement. None us (not one) knows for sure. And none of will ever know for sure.

That the Orthodox might culture anti-papal sentiments is not incredible either.

 

[bobzills]

Apparently, at the end of Vatican I, when the Greek Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef advanced to kiss the feet of the Pontiff, His Holiness stepped on the Patriarch’s neck with his full weight, and verbally berated him, calling him “a stubborn mule”. If this is true, well, my respect for Pius decreased.

I read a different version. As I recall, it was that the Pope asked the Patriarch to kneel and kiss his feet. As the Patriarch did so, the Pope then rubbed his feet over the head of the Patriarch.

 

[malphono]

That the Orthodox might culture anti-papal sentiments is not incredible either.

:banghead: :banghead:

 

[JMJ_coder]

If it were Benedict XV or Pius XI, e.g., under discussion, I would most certainly give the benefit of the doubt. Even the thought of an assault (or physical altercation, or whatever wants to call it) would have been totally out of character for either of them. But it’s not. Rather it is Pius IX that we’re talking about, and we all know that Pio Nono was, if nothing else, a very determined man. That’s not an allegation: there is plenty of factual history to support it.

No, I agree that there’s no evidence that the alleged incident(s) took place. At the same time, though, there is no evidence that it (they) did not take place. There are no eye-witness accounts to either confirm or deny (at least none that we yet know of under the eye witnesses names). So, irrespective of the year of their appearance, the stories could be true, in whole or in part. My guess is that, if (and again I emphasize if) the stories are true, they are most likely partly so.

I don’t see that there is really any harm in discussing what amounts to a possibility.To be calumny (or slander, for that matter) it would have to be a false statement. None us (not one) knows for sure. And none of will ever know for sure.

An eyewitness to something that never happened? Are you joking?

You keep mentioning that this would be against his character – do you have evidence of other times Blessed Pius IX physically accosted another person?

In the US, the courts presume the innocence of the accused until they are proven guilty.

Again, in my opinion this is a calumnous charge. It is an allegation with no actual evidence to support it and it is intended to malign the reputation of a holy man.

 

[malphono]

An eyewitness to something that never happened? Are you joking?

You keep mentioning that this would be against his character – do you have evidence of other times Blessed Pius IX physically accosted another person?

In the US, the courts presume the innocence of the accused until they are proven guilty.

Again, in my opinion this is a calumnous charge. It is an allegation with no actual evidence to support it and it is intended to malign the reputation of a holy man.

à chacun son avis