Greeks and Papal surprene primacy

I was reading Vatican II and came across this. Am I not understanding what is meant by Greeks? I cannot imagine this not being true.

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:

“The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]

By greeks I would assume it means Greek Christians. Greek Christians along with the rest of Orthodoxy however rejected that council.

Thanks for the clarification. So the statement was made, but since the council was rejected by the Greeks, in their mind, the statement is null and void

I suppose it should be pointed out that the statement quoted actually demands and defines far less than the Roman Church does today. No mention of universal jurisdiction (primacy in strong terms, but not that; although I suppose Latin canonists would read plenitude potestatis in such terms…) or infallibility (the highest teaching office, but not an infallible one).

The verbal gymnastics have been displayed many times on other threads. My question is about the accuracy of the statement. Did the Greeks say this? And if so, does the fact that the Greek Orthodox reject the council make the statement null and void.

I don’t have the acta of the council, but I imagine the document was drawn up by the Latins, and the Greeks agreed to it. And yes, the Greeks reject the council and this statement. Some would argue that the analogous Roman action was the Roman repudiation of the 879-880 council of Constantinople, which the Greeks remember as Constantinople IV.

Do you know why the Greeks rejected the council. And please, can we suspend the tit for tat for now.

I didn’t meant that as tit for tat, just presenting an analogous situation for comparison. Sometimes Churches accept councils and then change their minds.

The council had always been controversial, and the reigning Patriarch of Constantinople decided in the end to resign in protest, to be replaced by John Bekkos, who was in favour of the union. The Emperor who had supported the council then died, and his successor, Andronikos II, repudiated the council as contrary to Orthodoxy, and deposed Bekkos.

I checked out some commentary of Constantinople IV

As regards the canonical authority of these deliberations, various facts regarding the council held in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia in November 879, so that Photius might be restored to the see of Constantinople, should be remembered. Peter, a Roman cardinal, presided at this council. It took account of a letter of Pope John VIII, which had been sent to the emperor and translated into Greek. This reads (chapter 4): “We declare that the synod held at Rome against the most holy patriarch Photius in the time of the most blessed pope Hadrian, as well as the holy synod of Constantinople attacking the same most holy Photius (i.e., in 869-870), are totally condemned and abrogated and must in no way be invoked or named as synods. Let this not happen”. Some people have thought that this text had been altered by Photius; but in the so-called “unaltered” text of the letter this passage is replaced by dots (. . .), and the following passage reads: "For the see of blessed Peter, the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom, has the power to dissolve, after suitable appraisal, any bonds imposed by bishops.

This is earlier than Lyons where the Pope claims authority. I am going to keeping going back though Church councils. It looks like papal authority is not a recent innovation.

I would probably like to know how it was rejected, just for information purpose. Who rejected it and how was it done?

Nobody claims that the Pope has no authority. The question is what kind of authority.

The East and the West split in the Great Schism of 1054. In 1094, the two great Churches were reunited with the Council of Constantinople. However, the Churches split again when a group of Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204 (they were immediately condemned by the Pope, but the damage was done). The Second Council if Lyons, in 1274, united the Churches once again, but the Council was rejected by the general Orthodox population in 1297, and acceptance by the population is one of the requirements for a Council to be binding in Orthodoxy. A final attempt at reunification was made in 1450, and it was successful, making the Churches one, seemingly for good. But three years later, in 1453, a guard forgot to lock one of Constantinople’s gates, and the capital of Eastern Christianity was conquered by the Muslim Turks, who forced the East to once again split with the West. Thus, the modern Orthodox Churches are only six decades older than Protestantism.

Both Bekkos and the Union were condemned by the Synod of Blachernae in 1285.

The populace rejected it. In Orthodoxy, even if the bishops or patriarchs ratify a Council, the which they did in this instance, approval of the people is required.

This is interesting. I have not heard some of this before. Do you have a reference for research?

I think one or two of your facts may need checking. Also, just wondering, what happened in 1297?

Wow…I never heard this before. Can an Orthodox comment on this.

Could be- I’m certainly no history buff.

In 1297, the Patriarch of Constantinople John Bekkos, who was the las authority left who supported the union of the Churches, was forced to abdicate, and the populace rejected the Council.

Sources please :rolleyes:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit