www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Melkite Answers to Common Questions

It's an important distinction they make. The "infallibility" of the Pope in this sense is such only so long as he is articulating things which are already considered infallible. Things do not *become* infallible because of anything the pope does. You did not bold the most important part:

*only* because he is the head of the apostolic college and the spokesman of the infallibility of this college and of the whole Church. *emphasis* mine

So, whoever is the spokesman of the infallibility of the apostolic college and of the whole Church is infallible when articulating the already infallible beliefs thereof. Since that is the Pope, then he is infallible when he is articulating the infallible beliefs of the Church, whatever those may be.

That is a pretty strict set of parameters that many Catholics - Roman or otherwise - probably would not think of as typical or normative of the understanding of papal infallibility. It makes it almost inconsequential.

So, "Is the pope infallible, Yes or No?" as it was presented in the original Q&A is perhaps too simplistic.

But as many noted Eastern Catholics have suggested, "Clarification is needed."

Well, that's the traditional Catholic view as well. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope can create an infallible teaching. According to Catholic theology, as I understand it, the Pope may define what is already an infallible teaching.

Orthodox have problems with the idea that one Bishop (no matter how important he may be) can, without the consent of the Church, bind the consciences of the faithful.

Would they not already have been bound?

I'm reminded of something Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

It's important to note such details, so thank you for that. I bolded the specific parts that I bolded only for their relevance to the first post in this thread, to which I was responding, and not for any other reason.

About what you suggest concerning these details, I have just a few comments.

First, immediately following the part that you have bolded above ("The pope is infallible only because he is the head of the apostolic college and the spokesman of the infallibility of this college and of the whole Church"), the Melkite hierarchs themselves explain exactly what they mean by this comment, in relation to infallibility. They say, "When thus clarified, infallibility . . . is no longer an honorary privilege. The pope does not proclaim infallible dogmas without reason, without foundation, without reference to Scripture, to Tradition, and to the Church, needlessly, just to show that he is pope. Infallibility is a charism granted to him for the general welfare and stemming from his ministry." In other words, all they seem to be saying here is what, as DTBrown has noted (and Peter J seems to note with his Newman citations), is apparently the traditional Catholic view that the pope does not arbitrarily make declarations or "create" teachings without reference to what has (in at least some sense) already been taught in Scripture and Tradition. Vatican I, for example, had already said this:

Indeed, the Melkites themselves note, "These clarifications are generally accepted today." In other words, they don't seem to take themselves to be drastically curtailing papal infallibility so as to make it "almost inconsequential," if that is what you're suggesting.

Second, the way you've phrased your comment risks making it sound as though you take the idea of the Melkite Synod to be that the pope only "just happens" to be infallible when and because he happens to be saying what the Church already says infallibly (so that anyone, even me, could likewise be "infallible," just by happening to repeat what the Church says). This doesn't quite seem to capture the whole idea, though. It's true that the pope is regarded by the Melkites as something like the spokesman for the apostolic college and the Church, who is infallible *only because* he is the spokesman for the college and the Church. But it's not as though he just happens to be infallible because he just reiterates whatever the Church already says, just like I might do. Instead, the Melkites say that he is also the *head* of the apostolic college, and they remark,

and,

They also affirm what they take to be taught at Vatican I. The picture painted overall thus seems to be of a papacy that is more than a mere transmission device that happens to broadcast what the apostolic college has already spoken; it is a papacy that formulates indisputable affirmations of itself (not requiring the consent of the college or others), that at times judges and either rejects or approves what the rest of the college says, and that may give the first explicit statement of what has only been very implicit until then. (Still, yes, the pope in some sense only speaks what has already been believed. It is important to give all of these details emphasis.)

Sorry for the somewhat excessive length here. And by the way, I wanted to add, for what it's worth, that I'm Melkite.

I find the synod's answer to the question somewhat dissatisfying. While I can appreciate the attempt to curtail the impact of Vatican I, and understand the historical context of these remarks, still I am struck by the lack of concern as to pragmatic considerations. The practical question of when the church would know that the Pope has made such a declaration remains unanswered. For instance, would the Melkites at the council accept that the Immaculate Conception was such a definition? Probably not. So even if this understanding was adopted it would be objectionable to the Orthodox, and still would not address the practical problems associated with the doctrine. Since there is such ambiguity surrounding the doctrine, which enjoys no patristic consensus, why is it needed?

"*only* because" in the sense of precisely because. No one else can be or has claimed to be the unique "spokesman" except the Pope. And though only the Pope can act thus, i.e. solely, he nevertheless never acts alone. link [newadvent.org]

"Things" do not become infallible, period. Things are true or not. link [en.wikipedia.org]

Despite notions to the contrary, neither the Pope nor the Church became infallible as a result of the definition of Vatican I. As Newman observed “the Vatican Council left the Pope just as it found him.” Where before, however, there was uncertainty or doubt there now is conviction and certitude

My sentiments exactly. I have never read a Father of the Church who implicitly or explicitly said that the Bishop of Rome was infallible. (now the Primacy is something different- I fully believe in a primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Primacy doesn't equal infallibility)

Why is it needed? The Church did just fine without it for 1800 plus years and ever since its proclamation it has just added a further division between East and West that was totally unnecessary.

I don't see how that squares with:


I can understand papal infallibility as it seems to me the Melkite definition cited above does, in the sense of "voicing something that is already infallible within the Church". It doesn't seem to be particularly helpful or important of a thing and clearly is impractical in terms of the divisiveness and misunderstanding that comes as a result, but it seems harmless (aside from those very troubling aspects) otherwise.

For instance, when the Pope says "Christ died and was resurrected in body" is this truth infallible because it is infallible, or because the Pope said it is?

The agency of infallibility seems to be the question, which unless I misunderstood, the Melkite citation above attempted to clarify.

For reference, this is the full quote without redactions:

12) The foundation of papal infallibility: The pope is infallible only because he is the head of the apostolic college and the spokesman of the infallibility of this college and of the whole Church. When thus clarified, infallibility becomes comprehensible. It is no longer an honorary privilege. The pope does not proclaim infallible dogmas without reason, without foundation, without reference to Scripture, to Tradition, and to the Church, needlessly, just to show that he is pope. Infallibility is a charism granted to him for the general welfare and stemming from his ministry. These clarifications are absolutely essential and indispensable for anyone who wants to work for the union of the Churches, for they have not been sufficiently taken into account until now.

The text of the schema literally reproduces the definition of infallibility given by Vatican I. But this definition has in fact given rise to misinterpretations and regrettable exaggerations. It is therefore fitting that Vatican II should clarify this notion and make it more easily understandable. Thus the “ex sese” (by himself) is clarified by saying: “ex officio suo” (by his office); the “non ex consensu Ecclesiae” (not by the consensus of the Church) is clarified by saying: “non ex delegatione, nec ex canonica, etsi implicita, confirmatione” (not by delegation, nor by canonical collegial confirmation, even if it is implicit).

In the second place, it is true that the definitions of the pope are irreformable and without appeal, but we think that a clarification should be added, namely, that the definitions of the pope cannot contradict the faith of the Church and of the episcopal college.

These clarifications are generally accepted today. It is appropriate to insert them, so that Vatican II may bring new light to this doctrine of papal infallibility.

About the last part of this comment, I'm not so sure. In fact, I think the total evidence may suggest that they would accept that this was such a definition. The Melkite Synod's comments at Vatican II indicate that the Synod accepted much more from the "Latin" side of things than what earlier posters in this thread have suggested. For example, in Chapter 15, while discussing the indissolubility of marriage with reference to Eastern and Western practice, Patriarch Maximos IV declares:

I think that many Melkites will find this shocking, but there it is (see http://www.melkite.org/xcouncil/Council-15.htm). In addition, others have provided quotes from Melkite sources saying that there are "no disagreements" concerning doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc. (see http://www.melkite.org/misunder.htm). Bishop John Elya of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton has said on more than one occasion that we must accept these teachings; at one point he says (see http://www.melkite.org/Questions/R-6.htm),

I find this all quite strongly suggesting that Melkites are to assent to much more than what other posters here have suggested.

Now, I'm aware of Archbishop Zoghby's 1995 Profession of Faith, which was accepted by the vast majority (24 out of 26) of the bishops constituting the Holy Synod that year, and which reads as follows:

About this, I can only say that the first clause can be understood as referring to what Eastern Orthodoxy teaches as a matter of irreformable dogma (i.e., the teachings of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, essentially), and does not say, "I believe only what Eastern Orthodoxy teaches and nothing more." Even a Roman Catholic could affirm this, though, so I'm not exactly sure how to take it. The second clause mentions "the limits recognized . . . during the first millennium," but what those limits were is a matter of huge debate and is open to various interpretations, no particular one of which is endorsed in the profession itself. Given this lack of specificity, it is hard to tell exactly what is being intended (furthermore, the profession of faith could essentially just be voicing the thought that post-schism teachings in the Catholic communion are, properly understood, compatible with what Orthodoxy teaches and with what was believed in the first millennium, thus not calling those post-schism teachings into question at all, but instead implicitly reaffirming them). So, I find myself experiencing a bit of a cognitive dissonance as a Melkite, but as ultimately thinking that I have some rather clear, detailed, and lengthy statements from various members of the hierarchy on the one hand, and this brief, unspecific statement on the other (the latter of which has also been received not-so-warmly by both Roman Catholics and Orthodox). That at least gives me pause.

(About the rest of your post -- the difficulty of answering the practical question concerning when the pope has actually spoken ex cathedra -- I can just say that I feel the difficulty, and that it is a difficulty that Roman Catholics also sometimes feel.)

By the way, I would love to hear more from some of the other posters here (particularly Matt, the original poster in this thread, and StuartK, who seems to share his sympathies) concerning the material that we've been citing and discussing in the last two pages, perhaps particularly regarding Patriarch Maximos's comment on the Council of Trent. It might help to resolve some of the cognitive dissonance I mentioned!

Well, what it does say is, "I believe everything Eastern Orthodoxy teaches."

So by everything, I think what they mean is... everything. Part 2 of the statement stems from part 1.

You (pl) are demonstrating the need in your response above.

Regarding the IC for instance, what do you make of these Melkites and their belief? They seem to have a clear understanding.

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION CHURCH [egliseimmaculee.com]

There one finds a fairly detailed "meditation" which begins:

I fail to see what you mean.