Confused about Ex Cathedra

[1way]

I Dont understand.
I have been curious about the history of the Catholic position toward Islam as a result of the recent dialogue on the subject initiated by Pope Benedict.

I assume that the Catechism is Ex Cathedra.

It says in the Catechism:
“Muslims; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

I got confused when my search led to these and other similar statements by previous Popes speaking Ex Cathedra.

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: “It is an insult to the Holy Name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens * live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place … This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all… They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet … Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, 1434, ex cathedra: “There is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”*

 

[bpbasilphx]

Vatican I carefully defined and limited the conditions under which a papal decree is infallible.

Not everything a pope says IS automatically infallible.

Furthermore, infallibility as defined by Vatican I does NOT mean the pope cannot err in matters of merely human judgement, nor is he preserved from goofing up a prudential pastoral decision.

Much less does infallibility mean that the pope is impeccable, that is incapable of sin.

There are only two papal decrees that all theologians agree are infallible: Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

 

[1way]

Vatican I carefully defined and limited the conditions under which a papal decree is infallible.

Not everything a pope says IS automatically infallible.

Furthermore, infallibility as defined by Vatican I does NOT mean the pope cannot err in matters of merely human judgement, nor is he preserved from goofing up a prudential pastoral decision.

Much less does infallibility mean that the pope is impeccable, that is incapable of sin.

There are only two papal decrees that all theologians agree are infallible: Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

I understood the distinction. That is why I referred to specific statements. I was under the assumption that the above statements that I quote were all considered Ex Cathedra.

Your explanation could be interpreted to mean that Ex Cathedra is not infallible unless every theologian is in agreement … all of the time… and only the two that you referenced can qualify.

Your statement raises more questions than it answers for me.

Is there a link reference to the standards for an Ex Cathedra statement.

 

[manualman]

Tricky, isn’t it? Nobody has a completely clear answer for you because Vatican I is actually pretty recent in the larger scheme of the church.

Papal declarations have always been authoritative, but are NOT always considered “ex cathedra” statements. My understanding is that the ex cathedra statement pretty much has to SAY that it is before you can know for sure that it is.

Popes still have disciplinary authority that must be obeyed. 50 years ago, if I ate meat on any Friday, I’d be sinning. The sin wasn’t eating the meat, it was defying the authority of the Church. Today, I have the option of doing another sort of mortification as a substitute (which honestly hasn’t worked out too consistently - mental note fore next confession…) Your historical examples carry the authority of the pope at the time, but appear to be only disciplinary in nature; they were commands based on the cultural circumstances as he judged it at the time. As bad as muslim-christian relations are today, they are VASTLY better than they were 600 years ago and constructive dialogue (which is secretly, IMO, a better evangelization method than the overt kind) is possible between our two peoples.

In practice, its easier to figure out what ISN’T an infallible teaching of the pope than what is. If it contradicts an earlier papal teaching, then neither is infallible. But BOTH are authoritative (applied to their time). Does that make sense?

To address your earlier question, the apparent contradiction reveals that the earlier pronouncements were disciplinary only due to cultural circumstances at the time (all out war between Christendom and the Dar al Islam). The latter speaks to our world today where we are called to respect the PEOPLE of Islam and those aspects compatible with our faith, but not so much those aspects that conflict with our faith.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I was under the assumption that the above statements that I quote were all considered Ex Cathedra.

---

**Nope. They’re not.

One other thing–the quote from Pope Eugene about “holding the Catholic faith inviolately” is itself from the opening words of the Athanasian Symbol–which goes on to say what “Catholic faith” in this context means: namely the Trinity and Incarnation.**

 

[bpbasilphx]

in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet,

---

**BTW, this statment by Pope Clement cannot possibly be ex-cathedra either, because the words quoted above are simply not true.

Whatever Moslems may do, they do not “adore Mahomet”.**

 

[Spirithound]

It says in the Catechism:
“Muslims; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Analyzing this canon, clause by clause:

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:

"It is an insult to the Holy Name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that…the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place …

It would be an insult and a disgrace if they did this, but even as they don’t, it can be an insult to the Holy Name that He is not worshipped as He could be, as in a Catholic Mass, and it could be a disgrace to the Christian faith that we haven’t been more successful in evangelizing.

This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful (Yes, as with any heretics). These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty(Again, as with any heretics). We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands (this implies a kind of temporal power that the Pope didn’t possess in the early centuries, and doesn’t possess now). We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all… They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet … Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness."

You see, it is possible that Muslims are indeed worshipping the same God as we are, but just not as well as they could be.

 

[Lisa44]

Amazing! Could anything make less sense?

 

[Spirithound]

Amazing! Could anything make less sense?

Are you responding to my post? What specifically?

 

[aball1035]

Are you responding to my post? What specifically?

But are catacisms infallable?

 

[1way]

You see, it is possible that Muslims are indeed worshipping the same God as we are, but just not as well as they could be.

Why did they close that thread? Im confused about that as well.

 

[Lisa44]

… If it contradicts an earlier papal teaching, then neither is infallible. But BOTH are authoritative (applied to their time). Does that make sense?

To address your earlier question, the apparent contradiction reveals that the earlier pronouncements were disciplinary only due to cultural circumstances at the time (all out war between Christendom and the Dar al Islam). The latter speaks to our world today where we are called to respect the PEOPLE of Islam and those aspects compatible with our faith, but not so much those aspects that conflict with our faith.

Hi Manualman,
No, it doesn’t make sense.

Whatever Moslems may do, they do not “adore Mahomet”.

Hi Bpbasilphx
They don’t?

Are you responding to my post? What specifically?

Sorry, I meant the whole thread.

 

[1way]

But are catacisms infallable?

Based on all of the explanations attempting to clarify Ex Cathedra you ask a good question.

If, as was stated above, theologians disagree on any point of doctrine then that point can legitimately be excluded from being considered to be Ex Cathedra.
Including statements in the Catechism???

 

[Aramis]

Ex Cathedra does not automatically attach infallibility.

Read it again: Ex Cathedra does not automatically attach infallibility.

MANY many things are done Ex Cathedra that are outside the bounds of the decree on infallibility.

They are binding if they say they are binding, but unless they are matters of Faith or Morals, universally binding, and explicitly ex cathedra, they are not of need infallible.

The Catechism’s compendium is universally binding, and was promulgated ex cathedra by HH Benedict XVI; the intent as to faith and morals is that it is a primary source of teaching, and it implies it bears the charism of infalibility.

Dogma, however, it is not. So it is not an unchangeable part of the faith. Dogma must be clearly defined as such to be added to the body of dogma, either by being declared unchangeable truth or as forever binding. It is clear that the CCC is not such a document.

Therefore, it is doctrinal in nature; it must be given assent of will, tho not of need directly believed. (In short, if you don’t believe it, it’s not a grave error; teaching against it, however, would be.)

One other aspect: Infallible is not the same as unchanging, either. Infallible means not heretical, and not spiritually disadvantageous.

 

[1way]

Amazing! Could anything make less sense?

I was thinking the same. But I didnt want to seem rude.

It seems that the only official statements about the Muslim god that are valid are the most recent… Historically speaking.

My personal “gut feeling” is that there is something inherently wrong with that thinking… and people go to whatever verbal/ intellectual extreme to justify an obviously tenuous position.

PS,
Why did they close the thread asking about the Pope’s position on the Muslim god/ Catholic God question?

I enjoyed your well thought out responses in that thread by the way.

 

[Lisa44]

I was thinking the same. But I didnt want to seem rude.

It seems that the only official statements about the Muslim god that are valid are the most recent… Historically speaking.

My personal “gut feeling” is that there is something inherently wrong with that thinking… and people go to whatever verbal/ intellectual extreme to justify an obviously tenuous position.

PS,
Why did they close the thread asking about the Pope’s position on the Muslim god/ Catholic God question?

I enjoyed your well thought out responses in that thread by the way.

Hi 1way,
I don’t know why they closed it? Thank you. And the answer to simply be obedient to whatever the current Pope does or says falls short for me because I can’t be obedient at the expense of reason. If I simply wanted to be obedient I’d be a Muslim. And, Catholicism would be no better than Islam if it didn’t make any sense. Jesus cannot both be the only means to salvation, and not be the only means to salvation.

And saying that the plan of salvation includes those who reject Jesus makes no sense.

I mean, I can understand invincible ignorance up to a point; and I can understand saying that aboriginals who have never heard of Christianity can be saved. Of course, thats a no brainer. But when the Pope says that a false religion, that knew about Judaism and Christianity and rejected both, first rejecting the scriptures of the Jews, then rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, can also lead people to salvation he is speaking of a gospel I have not read! To be sure, this is a new thought and I’d really like to know how they arrived at this conclusion? Even the “unknown god” thing is weak. The bible does not say that those who worshipped an “unknown god” are included in the plan of salvation?

I have no idea how they arrived at this dogma and it has yet to be demonstrated.

Also, comparing Muslims to Jews is weak. There is no comparison, the Jews are the “chosen” people for God’s revellations to humanity up until the time of the Messiah. The Muslims are no one. Sorry, but they have no divine revellation all they do is pick bits from scripture to try and make up their own cult. And if having never read the koran and the hadith someone tries to argue that they worship the God of Abraham, then they have nothing to stand on. Because they will not be able to demonstrate how Islam is a divine religion with divine revellations and a holy prophet.

Basically, someone in the Vatican made a big mistake. Someone had some agenda it looks like to me. They must have had an agenda first, and then tried to make dogma fit into their agenda. Because the DOGMA of the Catholic church simply defies this new teaching. Unless someone can show me how this new dogma is from scripture or tradition, then I’m not going to believe it for one second, because it makes no sense, and it goes against the tradition of the Church.

 

[Spirithound]

It seems that the only official statements about the Muslim god that are valid are the most recent… Historically speaking.

But this is my point. The previous statements were not about “the Muslim god”, they were about the Muslim religion. No pope has ever defined infallibly which god the Muslims worship, but PJPII said (and I agree) that they worship the same God that we do.

 

[Filioque]

With regard to Catechisms, they are not infallible, they are a compolation of teachings of the Church and contain explinations of both De Fide truths, ie the existence of God, the Trinity, the Seven Sacraments etc and such information as clerical celebacy in the Latin Rite, or other customs, and Ecclesiastical laws that conform to individual rites. I have a collection of Both Eastern and Western Rite Catholic, and Orthodox catechisms, (and a few Protestant ones as reference) The Eastern and Latin Rite Catechisms proclaim the same Catholic Truths, and differ on matters of customs and traditions of Individual rites. The Eastern Catechisms also refer to Mysteries rather than Sacraments, however they are speaking of the same thing.

For a matter to be ex-cathedra, it must be a pronouncement of the Pope done in the fullness of his Apostolic Authority, on a Matter of Faith and or Morals, to the Entire Christian Church, Solemnly pronounced. While there are many well meaning people who feel they are speaking in the mind of the Church who have taken statements and branded them Ex-Cathedra, they are not always. The quotes in the original posting and others are usually not among those that respected theologians hold to be infallible statements. Nor the portions of the quotes the followers of Fr. Leonard Feeney, or those who want to hold Quo Primum Temporae of Pope St. Pius V to be so. (In the case of Quo Primum, it is manifest that he was only speaking to the Latin Rite, and not the entire Church.)

Just as Protestants worship God, however they do so in a defective way, in rejecting the Mass, and the Eucharist, (for most cases) the Muslim worships the God of Abraham, although imperfectly. Our focus should be showing them the joy of life in Jesus, and winning their souls through prayer and a good example whenever possible.

Mother Theresa did not take advantage of the people who died in her hospice, she did not force conversions. However there are those who converted due to the sanctity and compassion they saw in the sisters. There are times and places for dogmatic debates, and in all times prayer for the enlightenment of the souls of those who do not know the truths of the Faith.

 

[JReducation]

But this is my point. The previous statements were not about “the Muslim god”, they were about the Muslim religion. No pope has ever defined infallibly which god the Muslims worship, but PJPII said (and I agree) that they worship the same God that we do.

This is why this topic was shut down previously. There were complaints that the thread had derailed to offending the pope by questioning his statement.

The statement made by Vatican II is not about the Islamic beliefs, but about the Islamic people. It is not about Mohammed, but about God. It was written by Msgr. Joseph Ratzinger, presented to a synod of bishops in communion with the pope, voted on by them, presented to Pope Paul VI, poromulgated by him, repeated and affirmed by John Paul II, with an explanation that Islam as a religion is very lacking, but God is the one God, here and there, then repeated by Pope Benedict XVI.

It is not a dogma, it is an authoritative Church teaching. Most of what we believe are not dogmas, they are authoritative Church teachings. It seems that suddenly there is a demand for infallible declarations every time the pope opens his mouth or the Vatican makes some decree. This behavior was never part of tradition either. You either believed or you were on your own. The world did not demand that the Church accommodate to our criteria.

Pope Benedict has made it quite clear that we (Muslims and Catholics) must put aside the past between us and begin again trying to understand each other.

He was very excited in Jordan, because the new Catholic University in Jordan is going to provide a Catholic presence and it is also going to have a department of Islamic Theology alongside the department of Catholic religious studies. The new university is a Pontifical University. It is the property of the Vatican and controlled by the Vatican. The new departments of theology were authorized by the Vatican. This is going to be a very good school, I hope. This was in his speech to the Prince when he arrived. I believe that the speech is still on EWTN.

It if works out, there is finally going to be some serious dialogue between Islamic and Catholic scholars, rather than a bunch of laymen and clerics on both sides attacking each other and inciting anger.

It’s not a big achievement, but it’s a good beginning and should help settle the God question too, if the theologians on both sides are able to explain the answer in a way that everyone understands it. The Muslims need to understand that we too worship the one true God. They are just as suspicious about us as we are about them.

Suspicion is a two-way street. Let’s pray for an end to suspicion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lisa44]

But this is my point. The previous statements were not about “the Muslim god”, they were about the Muslim religion. No pope has ever defined infallibly which god the Muslims worship, but PJPII said (and I agree) that they worship the same God that we do.

How you can divorce the pre-Vat II opinions expressed by the Church on Islam, from the “Muslim god” is beyond me? You are suggesting that when the pre-Vat II Church talked about Muhammad or the Muslims, they were speaking of a group of people divorced from the Islamic god they worshipped. In other words, Muslims divorced from Islam.

Nonsense.