Replies

I think the Melkite patriarch views himself as sort of an anti-patriarch akin to the medieval anti-popes, so the presence of the Eastern Catholic Churches at Vatican I and Vatican II didn't really count. In order to be catholic according to St. Vincent of Lerins the matter has to be universal. The Melkites going back to Patriarch Gregory II who refused to accept Vatican I has been that all five patriarchal sees (the Orthodox ones) must ratify the decisions of an ecumenical council for it to attain ecumenical status. They cite the decree of the Council of Florence on papal primacy as their Catholic authority for arguing that all of the "ecumenical councils" since 1054 lack the charism of infallibility because they only were General Councils of the Roman patriarchate.

We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons. Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights. Before the schism the ratifying the decisions of the first seven councils required the assent of all five patriarchs, not just the Pope. Thus in my understanding of the Melkite view, simply calling a council ecumenical doesn't make it so. The Fourth Council of Constantinople was annulled by Pope John VIII, for example.