Can "Ex Cathedra" Be Changed?

[DominvsVobiscvm]

albert cipriani:

Are you addressing me? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

My comments were made with regard to people with half-a-brain. And so naturally I was not addressing “Traditionalists.”

I’ve produced the documentation that, contrary to Deacon Ed’s allegations, states that the Pope only WISHED and HOPED that we’d attend his new mass.

Actually, this is not what the Pope says. He says he “wish[ed] **to give the force of law ** to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal.” And “We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future”.

Again, you’re tripping on semantics, using no argument an intelligent, unbiased peson would make regarding these remarks. The Pope is obviously instituting a law, and binding it upon Catholics. When an authority figure uses the term “wish” in this context, he’s not expressing a private desire, like someone who “wishes” to win the lottery. C’mon . . .

It’s commen sense. Popes don’t issue Apostolic Constitutions promulgating Missals just so they can let the Catholic world know thag it might be a nice idea to start using it. And again, the following wording is as unambiguous as it gets:

We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

By the way, in Catholic circles, the *editio typica *means “the definitive Latin language edition”

The previous editions of the Missale Romanum prior to the current *editio typica *are not longer allowed to be used, without indult.

Another Acta Apostolica Sedis (act of the Apostolic See) of interest is the Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter Quattuor abhinc annos. 3 Oct. 1984: AAS 76 (1984) pp. 1088-1089.

It is this Act of the Apostolic See that allows the indult for the use of the 1962 edition of the Missale Romanum.

Quattuor abhinc annos states:

the Supreme Pontiff … grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:

• a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

b) **Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases. **
*
c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.

d) There must be **no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals. **e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application.

It is clear from this Acta Apostolica Sedis that the Pope does not in any way intend there to be a universal right for all priests to celebrate the Mass in accord with editions of the Missale Romanum prior to the current editio typica.

And of course, as every real traditionalist knows *"*divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father" (St. Catherine)

 

[albert_cipriani]

Deacon Ed:

Albert, I looked at the Latin (since I never trust translations, and the word translated as “wish” in the Vatican translation is *volumus *which has the following meanings: to will, wish, want, purpose, be minded, determine. The translation that I have says “We decree” which is in keeping with the “will” concept of *volumus *which is in the 3rd person plural, indicative, active mode. While an individual could “wish” it doesn’t seem reasonable that the pope, writing in the “royal we” form would “wish” but would, rather, “decree”.

Let’s see if I got this right. Since the Latin word “volumus” can mean will, want, purpose, be minded, and determine, as well as “wish,” we should assume that it means “decree,” especially because that is the word your translation chooses. Nevermind that my translation came from the Vatican archieves. OK.

If that’s the best you can do, OK. I expect better from you.

Clearly, Pope Paul VI was ambiguous enough in his choice of language as his New Mass is. On that account, a reasonable person has every reason to avoid his wishes as well as his Mass. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

Let’s see if I got this right. Since the Latin word “volumus” can mean will, want, purpose, be minded, and determine, as well as “wish,” we should assume that it means “decree,” especially because that is the word your translation chooses. Nevermind that my translation came from the Vatican archieves. OK.

If that’s the best you can do, OK. I expect better from you.

Clearly, Pope Paul VI was ambiguous enough in his choice of language as his New Mass is. On that account, a reasonable person has every reason to avoid his wishes as well as his Mass. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

Albert,

As I said, the Vatican translation does use the word “wish.” However, it also used English as spoken in England, not the United States. In England the King’s or Queen’s “wish” is, indeed, a command. The translation I use was intended for the United States and it uses “decree” which is consistent with the English meaning of wish when issued with the “royal we.” Even in American dictionaries we see this definition:

1. To long for; want. See synonyms at desire. 2. To entertain or express wishes for; bid: He wished her good night. 3. To call or invoke upon: I wish them luck. 4. To order or entreat: I wish you to go. 5. To impose or force; foist: They wished a hard job on her.

Both the 4th and 5th definitions seem consonant with the English usage, and with the idea that this is not simply a desire on the part of the pope but an actual command.

Deacon Ed

 

[albert_cipriani]

Deacon Ed:

As I said, the Vatican translation does use the word “wish.” However, it also used English as spoken in England, not the United States. In England the King’s or Queen’s “wish” is, indeed, a command.

I need to believe that the Vatican’s translation of the pope’s words as “wish” does not mean “wish.” It means something more than wish because the Vatican did not translate the Pope’s words for the benefit of the largely Catholic country of America (where wish means wish) but for the Anglican country of Britian where being Catholic has been illegal for hundreds of years. And as all British know (not that they care), when the powerless Protestant kings or queens of England use the word “wish” they actually mean something more than a wish.

For a hundred years British kings and queens have not had the political power to command, yet because in the distant past their wishes could command, we should believe you that Vatican translators erred in not having kings and queens in mind when they translated the pope’s wish as wish. Instead, they should have translated it as a comand because you have found a translation that does so and because you have invented this elaborate series of speculations? Am I the only one here who is dumbfounded by the absurdity of this line of reasoning? – Amazed, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Albert:

Admit it, you’re wrong.

For a hundred years British kings and queens have not had the political power to command,

Except that this isn’t just a British usage, but once even accepted in America, though hardly employed because no public figure in this nation speaks with any sense of nobility or regality, as, say, a Pope would.

Notice how we also don’t use the “royal plural” like Pope Paul VI does? When was the last time you heard someone, other than a king/queen or a Pope, refer to themselves as “We”?

Again, what part of the following don’t you understand?

We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

And again, does it make sense to you that the Pope would go through all the trouble to write an Apostolic Constitution just to give a suggestion that we all use a new Roman missal?

You’d have to be a schismatic to be this stupid.

(Original sin has as one of its effects the darkening of the intellect. Mortal sins, like heresy/schism/apsotasy, just speed the process along, as we can all see.)



Seriously, though, how can you continue to insist on your private, esoteric opinion of Pope Paul VI’s words, when he himself and his sucessors have had no doubt as to their meaning. Which is why Pope John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei allows bishops the right to give an indult to celebrate the Tridentine Missal? Why would an indult be necessary if Pope Paul’s words were not unambiguous? Why didn’t Pope Paul take the time to clarify them to the “Traditionalists” in his own day who complained to him about the new Missal and insisted on using the old? Why would there have a Lefebre scandal to begin with if Paul VI knew that Lefebvre had the right to say the Tridentine Mass anyways?

And why won’t you respond to any of the various pieces of documented information given you by others on this thead?

Open your eyes, Albert; return to the Catholic faith and regain some intellectual sanity.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

I need to believe that the Vatican’s translation of the pope’s words as “wish” does not mean “wish.” It means something more than wish because the Vatican did not translate the Pope’s words for the benefit of the largely Catholic country of America (where wish means wish) but for the Anglican country of Britian where being Catholic has been illegal for hundreds of years.

Um, it’s not illegal to be Catholic. That law has long since been repealed. If it hadn’t been, Tony Blair would be without a wife (he himself is said to be converting to Catholicism). Although Great Britain is now a constitutional monarchy, the Queen does still have the power to issue commands, but the context of those commands is now strictly circumscribed.

And as all British know (not that they care), when the powerless Protestant kings or queens of England use the word “wish” they actually mean something more than a wish.

As a writer, you must be aware that sometimes “word usage” is given so that we might better communicate. Here’s the “word sage” notation from the dictionary I used for the definitions:

Usage Note: Wish is widely used as a polite substitute for want with infinitives: Do you wish to sit at a table on the terrace? Anyone who wishes to may leave now. This usage is consonant with formal style, where it is natural to treat the desires of others with exaggerated deference. The corresponding use of wish with a noun-phrase object is less frequent, though it cannot be regarded as incorrect: Anyone who wishes an aisle seat should see an attendant. Both usages are likely to sound stilted in informal style, however. · When wish precedes a subordinate clause containing a contrary-to-fact statement, strict grammatical correctness requires that one use were rather than was: I wish I were (not was) lighter on my feet. Many writers continue to insist on this rule, but precedent for using the indicative was in such clauses can be found in the works of many writers, including King Alfred and Jonathan Swift.

The pope was clearly using a formal style as evidenced by the “royal we” and, therefore, this must be understood in that context and not in the informal context.

For a hundred years British kings and queens have not had the political power to command, yet because in the distant past their wishes could command, we should believe you that Vatican translators erred in not having kings and queens in mind when they translated the pope’s wish as wish. Instead, they should have translated it as a comand because you have found a translation that does so and because you have invented this elaborate series of speculations? Am I the only one here who is dumbfounded by the absurdity of this line of reasoning? – Amazed, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Absurdity? I think not. But, it does beat the sophism that seems to be your specious line of reasoning.

Deacon Ed

 

[bob]

makin503:

Thank you all for your comments. I have always been taught that Pope St. Pius V spoke “ex cathedra” that the Latin Tridentine Mass was to be said “in perpetuity.” If that is true, how then can Vatican II change that with the Novus Ordo Mass? Please comment.

Sorry I have just joined this thread late and have not read the rest fully. Perhaps someone has already answered it.

However, Pope St. Pius V died in 1572. He could not have spoken ex-cathedra.

The doctrine of Papal infallibility and hence definition of ex-cathedra only came in 1870 by Pope Pius IX.

Even Pope Pius IX’s Doctrine on the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, pronounced by him earlier in 1854 cannot technically be said to be ex-cathedra.

The one and only doctrine that is officially ex-cathedra is that of Doctrine of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus, pronounced by Pope Pius XII in 1950.

Even Pope John Paul II has not exercised the “Chair of Peter.”

 

[Deacon_Ed]

bob:

Sorry I have just joined this thread late and have not read the rest fully. Perhaps someone has already answered it.

However, Pope St. Pius V died in 1572. He could not have spoken ex-cathedra.

The doctrine of Papal infallibility and hence definition of ex-cathedra only came in 1870 by Pope Pius IX.

Actually, the *definition *of the doctrine came to be in 1870. As our Catholic teaching tells us, the pope and the councils cannot invent new teachings, they can only codify what is already present. While the term might not have applied, it was possible for prior popes to issue teachings that were infallible – although none did.

Even Pope Pius IX’s Doctrine on the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, pronounced by him earlier in 1854 cannot technically be said to be ex-cathedra.

The one and only doctrine that is officially ex-cathedra is that of Doctrine of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus, pronounced by Pope Pius XII in 1950.

Even Pope John Paul II has not exercised the “Chair of Peter.”

The Church disagrees with your asserton tht the definition of the Immaculate Conception is not infallible. It meets all the criteria and is said to be one of the *two *infallible teachings by popes (the other is, as you correctly noted, the Assumption of Mary).

Deacon Ed

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

While the term might not have applied, it was possible for prior popes to issue teachings that were infallible – although none did.

This isn’t true, DeaconEd, though it is a common misconception (particularly among Modernist minimalists).

The two above-named Marian Dogmas are believed by many to be the only two ex cathedra definitions since the Pontificate of Blessed Pius IX, not in the whole history of the Church! (There are some theologians who argue that there have been more than these two.)

No one’s ever taken the time to tally up the number of statements, and such would actually be impossible, since there is always the possibility that, with the passage of time, such statements might be lost to us (though their truths would always abide in the Church somehow).

Otherwise, excellent replies!

 

[Deacon_Ed]

DominvsVobiscvm:

This isn’t true, DeaconEd, though it is a common misconception (particularly among Modernist minimalists).

The two above-named Marian Dogmas are believed by many to be the only two ex cathedra definitions since the Pontificate of Blessed Pius IX, not in the whole history of the Church! (There are some theologians who argue that there have been more than these two.)

No one’s ever taken the time to tally up the number of statements, and such would actually be impossible, since there is always the possibility that, with the passage of time, such statements might be lost to us (though their truths would always abide in the Church somehow).

Otherwise, excellent replies!

Okay, let me clarify. An ex cathedra teaching is one in which the pope presents a teaching on matters of faith or morals which, while commonly held, is not currently defined. Remember that *ex cathedra *teachings are a special case of the the charism of infalliblity which is given to the Church. Prior to the two Marian dogmas, no pope had issued a teaching which qualified under the definition of *ex cathedra *teachings.

This is not to say that these are the only times a pope has taught infallibliy. Anytime anyone teaches what is *de fide *that person teaches infallibly. But that teaching does not make it infallible, nor does it define the teaching. That’s the difference.

Deacon Ed

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Prior to the two Marian dogmas, no pope had issued a teaching which qualified under the definition of ex cathedra teachings.

Again, this is not true.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

One example I can think of off the top of my head is Boniface VIII’s dogmatic definition in Unam Sanctam:

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

There are also those who would argue that Paul VI gave an ex cathedra definition in Humane Vitae, and John Paul II both in Evagenlium Vitae (against abortion) and his document on the impossibility of women’s ordination. (Although these last few are contested.; everyone agrees they are infallible, but for what reason is debated.)

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Oh, and it’s been argued and believes that solemn papal canonizations are ex cathedra statements.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

DominvsVobiscvm:

One example I can think of off the top of my head is Boniface VIII’s dogmatic definition in Unam Sanctam.

There are also those who would argue that Paul VI gave an ex cathedra definition in Humane Vitae, and John Paul II both in Evagenlium Vitae (against abortion) and his document on the impossibility of women’s ordination. (Although these last few are contested.; everyone agrees they are infallible, but for what reason is debated.)

By the time of Paul VI canon law required that the pope make his intention to define something ex cathedra clear. Pope Paul VI never indicated that he intended his teaching to be considered in that class. There are, however, elements of both *Humanae Vitae *and Evanglium Vitae that are infallible because they are the constant teaching of the Church. The same is true of Ordinalio Sacerdotalis.

Boniface’s teaching in *Unam Sanctum *is generally held not to be infallible because a) it’s in a disciplinary document (Bulls are generally held to be in that category), 2) it does not appear to be addressed to the entire Christian world (there is no specific address in the document) and, 3) it does not explicate a constant teaching of the Church but, rather, reflects a particular period of understanding in the Church.

Note that if this teaching were infallibly correct then teachings from Vatican II that state that salvation may be possible for non-Catholics must be false – and this teaching derives from the writings of Pope Pius IX (specifically that regarding invincible ignorance), hardly a modern innovator.

Again, the fact that a pope teachings something that is infallible does not make the teaching *ex cathedra *-- that is a specific exercise of the charism of infalibility by the pope with very carefully defined limitations.

Deacon Ed

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Again, Deacon, I’d have to disagree. I don’t know of any orthodox theologian who says that the Popes have spoken ex cathedra only twice, and coincidentally only since the 1800s.

 

[alice_ciprian]

Deacon Ed:

Boniface’s teaching in *Unam Sanctum *is generally held not to be infallible because 1) it’s in a disciplinary document (Bulls are generally held to be in that category), 2) it does not appear to be addressed to the entire Christian world (there is no specific address in the document) and, 3) it does not explicate a constant teaching of the Church but, rather, reflects a particular period of understanding in the Church.

1. If the title of documents were determinative of their theological grade of certainty, any statement in any “Dogmatic Constitution” would have to be, by definition, a dogma of the Church.
2. Unam Sanctum does address the entire Christian world in that it states that every person of any church or no church who is not in the Catholic Church cannot be saved. Every person is “the entire Christian world” and even the pagans outside the Christian world.
3. Unam Sanctum does explicate a constant teaching of the Church and on that count alone qualifies as a species of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium. Through a careful reading of Denzinger’s, Unam Sanctum’s dogma of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus can be seen as having been repeated 19 times, at least by my count. – Sincerely, Alice Ciprian the Traditional Catholic

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

OMG!

Albert’s had a sex change!?

See what shcism does to you?

 

[alice_ciprian]

DominvsVobiscvm:

OMG!

Albert’s had a sex change!?

See what shcism does to you?

I resemble that remark! Now show some respect to us lady folk, you, you guy you. – Alice Ciprian the Traditional Catholic

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]