P
Peter_J
Guest
Alright, but I meant Catholic in the sense of members of the Roman Communion.
That said… if a Catholic keeps doubting Papal Bulls, then we have a word for such folk: Lutheran
Can a Catholic believe that there haven't been any ex cathedra statements?
- Status
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
Certainly. Rev. John Trigilio, Jr. and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, authors of Catholicism for Dummies, hold that Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus are the only two ex cathedra pronouncements.
C
concretecamper
Guest
Peter J:
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
If you define ex cathedra statements as those pronounced only after Vatican I, then the answer is 2. If you define ex cathedra statements as infallible teachings from the Pope or Church Councils, there are many many more.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
C
concretecamper
Guest
Peter J:
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
If you define ex cathedra statements as those pronounced only after Vatican I, then the answer is 2. If you define ex cathedra statements as infallible teachings from the Pope or Church Councils, there are many many more.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
B
benjohnson
Guest
From what little I know of Catholic teaching, I would say that a Catholic can rebel against the teaching of the church and still remain a Catholic as long as they repent and seek forgiveness and do their best to assent as they are able. During this time, from what I can see, they should not attempt to convince others of their known wayward thoughts as this would be compounding the problem.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’m not talking about Catholics disagreeing with teachings. See this clarification:
P
Peter_J
Guest
I go with the way Vatican I defined “ex cathedra”, not some personally chosen definition.
C
concretecamper
Guest
Here is a portion of Vatican I. The Church and Pope has taught infalliby since the beginning.
- That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
- So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .
“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]
Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:
“The Roman Pontiff 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, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church.” [58]
- Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
B
benjohnson
Guest
We’ll… there have been billions of great Catholics that didn’t believe in papal infallibility - very few even knew that the papal office had this charism for until it was defined as Dogma in A.D. 1870.
As I understand it, as a Catholic you have to give as much assent as it as your are able, and try to bind your will to this teaching. That a particular Catholic can’t do that despite their best efforts doesn’t put themselves outside the Catholic faith - only that they have an additional struggle to work with in this life.
C
concretecamper
Guest
Billions of great catholics…is that right?
B
benjohnson
Guest
If you’re drawing a distinction between “C” Catholics and “c” Catholics, then no… I meant that there have been billions of Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome who didn’t even know there was such a thing as Papal Infallibility and Ex Cathedra statements, especially before A.D. 1870.
C
concretecamper
Guest
I agree with you.
When you said there were billions of great Catholics who did not believe in papal infallibility, that can be interpreted that they knew but did not believe. Your second statement cleared it up for me.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Yes, that makes sense.
Incidentally, you may have already seen this other recent thread and what I posted on it, but I’ll reference it anyhow (since readers may not have) as it overlaps a lot with what we’re discussing:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11387244#post11387244
C
concretecamper
Guest
Vatican I : So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
B
benjohnson
Guest
My claim is that rejection is ‘active’ - as I understand it, rejecting the Dogma would be denying it after understanding the truth of it.
But “believing the the dogma false” could be excused for many legitimate reasons: Poor instruction, deficient mental facilities, or being born at the wrong time.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
“Billions” might be an exaggeration. In 1870 the world population was about 1.3 billion people.
C
concretecamper
Guest
If you claim to be part of the Catholic Church, and you are presented with the truth, you must believe the dogma, otherwise the Church has defined the consequences.
B
benjohnson
Guest
I’m being too hopeful - indeed the world would be a better place with billions of Catholics.
B
benjohnson
Guest
This is where the Lutheran in me begins to lament for my brothers in Christ in the Catholic church that for some reason or another quietly struggle with accepting and truly believing certain dogmas.
The Lutheran objects to this and says that God defines the consequences of sin - and that the Christian does need to repent and seek forgiveness in Christ and pray to God for help in their un-beleif. My scant Lutheran theology would say that to be cast out (anathema) because of our frail circumstance should be lovingly done on a case by case basis not in our own minds based on the writings of Bishops no matter how capable.
Of course, we can’t go around making our own versions of Christianity in out minds, but sImply put - I pray that it’s God’s judgment that prevails in the end, for we judge ourselves we’ll all come up short and we (of course) lack God’s grace to save ourselves.
J
Jeanne1184
Guest
Therein lies the rub, “…(when) you are presented with truth”… Whose truth? If the Catholic Church presents a ‘truth’ that is not backed by Scripture nor conforms to the Spirit of Christ’s message, it is not Truth.
A mirage of water is not Living Water. We all drink a combination of sand and Water before we begin to grow in discernment. At one time, I got so tired of drinking sand that I decided the entire Bible was a mirage. And then I learned to stop shopping for new mirages and stood still and asked the questions of the Bible; Water began to trickle in.
“Never trust anything you are afraid to question.”
“Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.” (Skepticism, not cynicism.)
To me, the Catholic church is like family. Christ is patient with my flaws and I pass that on to the Church of St. Peter.
- Status