Melkites and those easterners who reject infallibility of rome

[Vico]

i’m not sure if those canons are applicable to all easterns, including melkites etc, or why there’s so many who say not all easterns believe in infallibility.

i would suppose either way, the latern council may have been perceived even by melkites and everyone as an ecumneitcal council, and thus binding. unlike say vatican I which they dont see as ecumenical.

but all they ‘humbly defer’ v ‘humbly submit’ points would still be applicable as questions?

Yes the CCEO canons apply to all eastern Catholic churches sui iuris, the Greek-Mellkite Catholic Church which is one of the 22 eastern Catholic churches.CCEO
Canon 1
The canons of this Code affect all and solely the Eastern Catholic Churches, unless, with regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly stated otherwise.

Read this from the Melkite site from Bishop John:You are right to think that ” we are one of many Eastern autonomous Churches (self-governing) as the Ukrainians, the Ruthenians and other self-governing (sui juris) Eastern Catholic Churches. We hold that the Pope of Rome is infallible in important matters of faith and morality, when he speaks “ex cathedra”, in his position as the visible head of the Catholic Church. We may interpret these dogmas in “Eastern” terms; however, we are not allowed to deny their truth without breaking the bond of unity with the Pope of Rome, the successor of St. Peter the Rock.
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

 

[linate]

i remember reading somewhere that some eastern catholics only take him to be infallble in ‘important’ issues. one could almost perceive that to mean not everything he says that is infallible is infallible, just that on important issues we should treat it that way.

i do notice that that quote from the melkite says “important issues of faith and morals”. it may be reading too much into it, but he does say ‘important’ issues as if it might matter of heirarchy and priority. akin to ‘humbly defer’ but not necessarily ‘humbly submit’.

also, reading about when the eastern bishops left vatican I in protest about papal infallibiliy, i think i read that some later agreed to go along with it as long as they could have a clause that maintiained “all the rights and privigleges” of their own bishiops.

i suppose whatever that means, as even the catholic church recognizees all bishops have rights and privilegs, but say when the roman bishop says he’s infallible or acts like it, then he is.

it does make you think, if what my hesitations say above are true, what happens when the roman bishops ‘plays a trump card’ so to speak. if it’s not viewed by the eastern bishop to be important enough, can he forget about that trump card?
but when it’s seen as important or serious, take the trump as is?

it would be akin to rome teaching infallible is when: the pope, intentionally, teaches, on faith and morals.

but for the eastern it would be: the pope, intentionally, teaches, on important issues, of faith and morals.

 

[linate]

also why are there so many who say it’s not necessarily settled for some eastern catholics ,about infalliblity of rome?

as in that link i provided and in general.

it might be fair to say what some argue is only what some argue, and what others argue is not without substantiation eiether. as did the poster in the link i gave in the opening post.

 

[Vico]

i remember reading somewhere that some eastern catholics only take him to be infallble in ‘important’ issues. one could almost perceive that to mean not everything he says that is infallible is infallible, just that on important issues we should treat it that way.

i do notice that that quote from the melkite says “important issues of faith and morals”. it may be reading too much into it, but he does say ‘important’ issues as if it might matter of heirarchy and priority. akin to ‘humbly defer’ but not necessarily ‘humbly submit’.

also, reading about when the eastern bishops left vatican I in protest about papal infallibiliy, i think i read that some later agreed to go along with it as long as they could have a clause that maintiained “all the rights and privigleges” of their own bishiops.

i suppose whatever that means, as even the catholic church recognizees all bishops have rights and privilegs, but say when the roman bishop says he’s infallible or acts like it, then he is.

it does make you think, if what my hesitations say above are true, what happens when the roman bishops ‘plays a trump card’ so to speak. if it’s not viewed by the eastern bishop to be important enough, can he forget about that trump card?
but when it’s seen as important or serious, take the trump as is?

it would be akin to rome teaching infallible is when: the pope, intentionally, teaches, on faith and morals.

but for the eastern it would be: the pope, intentionally, teaches, on important issues, of faith and morals.

Ex cathedra is only for important issues of faith and morals. The definition of “ex cathedra” (from the chair) is below. If you have any more doubts about it, then read the Profession of Faith from the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith.
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks*** ex cathedra***, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Doctrinal Commentary
on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei

1. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be *believed as divinely revealed *(first paragraph) or to be *held definitively * (second paragraph) with an act which is either *defining *or * non-defining. *In the case of a *defining *act, a truth is solemnly defined by an ‘ex cathedra’ pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a *non-defining *act, a doctrine is taught *infallibly *by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the *depositum fidei, *is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.17 The declaration of *confirmation or reaffirmation *by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.
   vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

 

[ByzCath08]

And the Latin church can’t even figure out how many statements have been made Ex-Cathedra.

 

[linate]

okay, just sorting out some thoughts here…

which of the following scenarios do the easterns follow, or are they basically the same as regular catholics?

---

this is an example of the common understanding of ex cathedra… an example of ‘being so explicit that you say you are being infallible’:

There is no set list of ex cathedra teachings, but that’s because there are only two, and both are about Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950).

But neither of these was earth-shattering to Roman Catholics, because these beliefs had been nurtured through devotion, prayer, and local teaching for centuries before becoming official papal teaching.

Ex cathedra is the theological term for a teaching that has been declared infallibly by the Roman Pontiff. In short, ex cathedra means that the pope can explicate an article of divine revelation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in full possession of his role as Peter’s successor. When he does so he is protected from error. This ex cathedra possibility was supported by the Second Vatican Council. However, this does not mean that every time the pope speaks he is speaking infallibly.

Even though only two doctrines have been declared ex cathedra, there are many others that the church professes must be believed. Some of these are laid out in the 1998 “Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei” issued by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

According to this document, many teachings are “irreformable” and “definitive” and as such can be seen as possessing the binding quality of an infallible doctrine, although not necessarily proclaimed ex cathedra. That is, they aren’t promulgated by the pope himself but by the larger magisterium of the church. The lineup of “irreformable” teachings—ones divinely revealed—include those regarding Jesus, Mary, sin and grace, the sacraments, the primacy of the pope, and the doctrinal formulations of the ancient creeds.

The lineup of “definitive” teachings on faith and morals—ones the church holds to be logically derived from divine revelation—include teachings such as the doctrine of papal infallibility, the immorality of abortion and euthanasia, the communion of saints, and others. Assent of “intellect and will” to both categories of teachings are required for full communion with the Catholic Church.

• See more at: uscatholic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings#sthash.VEd3cSIc.dpuf

to be sure, there are many times in the past that popes or popes through councils have said things like “we define…”.

i would assume those are also ‘explicit’ as intended by the last posters quoted text?

what about when the pope does the following with out something like “we define…”, but is otherwise clear enough? the pope does the following: intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals.
i would suppose there’s a certain “explicitness” even about these things?

to be sure, there are many beliefs which are commonly understood, and accepted by the pope and all the bishops. so i would suppose this would be included in the last post’s quoted text.

a problem, of course, is that it is not always clear what is understood and believed by the whole church.

a common criticism of ‘ex cathedra’ when infallibility was official developed, was that it seemed to be allowing the catholic church a way to say “no we didn’t really define that…”. it’s sort of part of an overall criticism of a “magic hat” where they can keep things ambiguous enough to make people think they should believe something, then later change it if need be, and say it was never taught to begin with. i know sometimes catholics get into tiffs about whether so many things ‘should be’ believed even though it’s not definitively defined. some say you must believe under pain of sin, even if it’s not definiitive, and others argue that you can disagree if it’s not clearly taught enough. either way, the catholic church can later switch gears if need be.

 

[linate]

in the following article a notable catholic apologist notes that of course there are more than two infallible statements in the past.

at the end, he says that these two examples are the only two dogmatic definitions… but what does that mean?

isn’t it any time the pope says 'we define…" and it concerning an issue of theology, that it is a dogma, and basically a definition of it?
or actually… it says at the end too “in the last hundred and fifty years” which might just mean to say there’s not been much of anything defined since then.

Two Instances Of Papal Infallibility?

by Jimmy Akin

in Theology

I don’t normally read political sites and blogs, but this weekend I was surfing around the Web and ran across an exchange between several folks (Stephan Kinsella, Scott P. Richert, Thomas Storck, Thomas Fleming, and Thomas Woods) regarding different economic theories and the extent to which they correspond with authentic Catholic social teaching.

In the course of the discussion, one of the participants (Stephan Kinsella) claimed that the others believed papal encyclicals on economics are infallible. This provoked and objection and a subsequent retraction of the claim. So far so good. They’re not infallible. In fact, the subject matter of such encyclicals is only indirectly related to the deposit of faith, and thus they have less relative weight compared to encyclicals whose contents are directly related to the deposit of faith.

Unfortunately, in the course of the discussion one one of the participants (Scott P. Richert) said the following:

Papal infallibility is widely misunderstood by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Infallibility has been invoked by popes only twice: by Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854 (16 years before papal infallibility itself was actually defined at Vatican I), and by Pius XII, in defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950. That’s it: Leo XIII, in Rerum novarum, and Pius XI, in Quadragesimo anno, did not invoke it [source].

It is certainly true that papal infallibility is widely misunderstood, but I regret to say that this statement falls into a common misunderstanding of it: namely, the idea that it has only been exercised twice. This claim is commonly made by dissident Catholics who wish to minimize the practical impact of the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the claim has been so commonly made that even many orthodox Catholics have absorbed it and repeat it in good conscience.

But it isn’t true.

Papal infallibility has been exercised far more than two times. In fact, it had been used many times prior to 1870, when it was defined by the First Vatican Council. This was the clear understanding of the council, as shown–for example–by reading the later Archbishop Gasser’s relatio to the council fathers. This was a briefing given to the bishops at Vatican I to ensure a common understanding of the proposals regarding papal infallibility they were voting on. It is reprinted in the excellent book The Gift of Infallibility (which is the best book on the subject), and in the course of the relatio, Gasser alludes to the numerous times papal infallibility had been used before the Council.

Papal infallibility continues to be widely used. In fact, the current pontiff has used it more than any of his predecessors. The reason is that papal canonizations of saints are infallible. In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” (example). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” (source). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements. If you see a pope say “we define” or “I define,” it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church’s gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption thus are not the only two exercises of papal infallibilty in history. They are arguably the only two dogmatic definitions (i.e., definitions of dogmas; saint canonizations being definitions of what are known as dogmatic facts rather than dogmas per se) in the last hundred and fifty years, but they are far from the only two in history.

 

[Vico]

okay, just sorting out some thoughts here…

which of the following scenarios do the easterns follow, or are they basically the same as regular catholics?

---

this is an example of the common understanding of ex cathedra… an example of ‘being so explicit that you say you are being infallible’:

to be sure, there are many times in the past that popes or popes through councils have said things like “we define…”.

i would assume those are also ‘explicit’ as intended by the last posters quoted text?

what about when the pope does the following with out something like “we define…”, but is otherwise clear enough? the pope does the following: intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals.
i would suppose there’s a certain “explicitness” even about these things?

to be sure, there are many beliefs which are commonly understood, and accepted by the pope and all the bishops. so i would suppose this would be included in the last post’s quoted text.

a problem, of course, is that it is not always clear what is understood and believed by the whole church.

a common criticism of ‘ex cathedra’ when infallibility was official developed, was that it seemed to be allowing the catholic church a way to say “no we didn’t really define that…”. it’s sort of part of an overall criticism of a “magic hat” where they can keep things ambiguous enough to make people think they should believe something, then later change it if need be, and say it was never taught to begin with. i know sometimes catholics get into tiffs about whether so many things ‘should be’ believed even though it’s not definitively defined. some say you must believe under pain of sin, even if it’s not definiitive, and others argue that you can disagree if it’s not clearly taught enough.

Here is a list of the dogmas, assembled by Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

On that list are 255 irreformable dogmas and 102 Certain Truths Not Yet Defined by the Magisterium.

 

[linate]

am i correct?

i usually take the following terms to mean:

de fide: of the faith, infallible but not necessarily by as explicit as ex cathedra

ex cathedra: so explicit that they say they explaining it infallibly

 

[linate]

i think the issue might be the way the quoted text from the congregation above are a bit nebulous, even as stated. that is, it might seem like the statement of doctrine needs to be so explicit that it’s somehow stating it’s something official. but then again, it might just mean something as potentially ‘unclear’ as: the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals.

i have come to realize that another way of explaining it could be: intentionally, binding, the church, on faith and morals.

the idea, it better resonate with ‘binding and loosing’ as given to Peter. and, it takes away a little of the mystery, arguably, if it’s something that was intentinoally bound instead of intentinoally taught.

 

[Vico]

am i correct?

i usually take the following terms to mean:

de fide: of the faith, infallible but not necessarily by as explicit as ex cathedra

ex cathedra: so explicit that they say they explaining it infallibly

From the book by Ott, de fide definita includes ex cathedra and conciliar dogma, but also to be accepted are fides ecclesiastica. The 255 listed fall into categories 1 and 2 below.**§ 8. The Theological Grades of Certainty

**

1.    The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."

2.    Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.

3.    A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.

…

additional categories are given.

 

[KP3243]

i’m not sure if those canons are applicable to all easterns, including melkites etc, or why there’s so many who say not all easterns believe in infallibility.

i would suppose either way, the latern council may have been perceived even by melkites and everyone as an ecumneitcal council, and thus binding. unlike say vatican I which they dont see as ecumenical.

but all they ‘humbly defer’ v ‘humbly submit’ points would still be applicable as questions?

There is papal infallibility where the Pope alone can declare something infallible and then there is when all the Bishops and the Holy Father are all in agreement on a faith or moral issue it is also infallible. On their own the Bishops are not infallible.

 

[Seraphim73]

On their own the Bishops are not infallible.

That is a really odd statement and I’m pretty sure not true even according to Catholic theology. Is the pope not a bishop? Does the Church lose it’s infallibility during times there is no pope?

 

[RaphaelJ]

That is a really odd statement and I’m pretty sure not true even according to Catholic theology. Is the pope not a bishop? Does the Church lose it’s infallibility during times there is no pope?

The bishops are infallible when they teach in communion with the Pope and the councils. In a sense, since no Ecumenical Council can be held without the Pope or his representative, then I suppose two sources of infallible doctrine are taken out.

Also, how can Vatican I not be ecumenical? It was a council with the Pope and the bishops of the world (or a sizeable amount). It’s even listed as one of the ecumenical councils in books and websites.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s even listed as one of the ecumenical councils in books and websites.

I don’t have the quote on hand, but I think it was St. Athanasius who addressed the issue of ecumenical councils being listed on websites.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The bishops are infallible when they teach in communion with the Pope and the councils. In a sense, since no Ecumenical Council can be held without the Pope or his representative, then I suppose two sources of infallible doctrine are taken out.

Also, how can Vatican I not be ecumenical? It was a council with the Pope and the bishops of the world (or a sizeable amount). It’s even listed as one of the ecumenical councils in books and websites.

There are multiple definitions of Ecumenical Council being thrown around here, not all are equal. One is the definition you listed above; another is a council including most or all representatives of all the Churches; another is a Council dealing with issues that most or all the Churches are combating or clarifying. The highest “tier”, could be recognized as including one or all these criteria.

 

[wynd]

I don’t have the quote on hand, but I think it was St. Athanasius who addressed the issue of ecumenical councils being listed on websites.

It’s not often that this forum makes me laugh out loud!

 

[Vico]

Those questions are best asked for an Eastern Orthodox person. I’m Oriental Orthodox, and don’t understand many of things that they do.

The Roman Pope never presided over any of the councils recognized as ecumenical by the Eastern Orthodox, however. They recognize seven in total, and at none of those seven did the Roman Bishop even attend, let alone preside. He instead sent legates to act in his place. In all of those councils, Western bishops in general were an extreme minority; sometimes not even present at all. The seven, and the presiding bishop of each one of them, are as follows:

1. Council of Nicaea (325 AD) - Hosius of Cordoba and Emperor Constantine - only five Western bishops in attendance (out of 318).
2. Council of Constantinople (381 AD) - Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzus, and Nectarius of Constantinople - zero Western bishops present.

3, Council of Ephesus (431 AD) - Cyril of Alexandria - The two Papal legates (and one priest sent as Pope Celestine’s personal representative) arrived late, and were anyway instructed by Celestine not to participate in the discussions, only to offer judgment on them.

1. Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) - A board of government officials and senators, led by the patrician Anatolius - The Western church was represented by legates Bishop Paschasnius of Lilybaeum, Bishop Julian of Cos, and the priests Boniface and Basil. 370 total bishops attended.
2. Constantinople II (553 AD) - Eutychius of Constantinople - 152 bishops attended, 16 of which were Western.
3. Constantinople III (680 AD) - Patriarch George I of Constantinople - c. 300 bishops in attendance, if added up over all the sessions (no info on how many were Western, but the Pope had sent a few legates and priests, as was usual by this time)
4. Nicaea II (787 AD) - Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople - 350 (the Western Church was represented by two Papal legates)

It seems that the faithful are more concerned about what is ecumenical than Rome is. I’m not aware of any official list of ecumenical councils issued by Rome, however Lumen Gentium 22 (Chapter III), dogmatic constitution from Vatican II, shows the Roman teaching that it is not necessary for the Roman Pontiff to convoke or preside, but it is necessary to confirm or accept to be considered ecumenical.
“A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*)” Supplemental note 29: “Cfr. Cod. Iur. Can., c. 227.”

 

[Peter_J]

It’s not often that this forum makes me laugh out loud!

I’m not often successful, but I do sometimes try to make people laugh, because it saddens me that the Internet has more crazy than funny (just slightly ).