Encyclicals: Which are "ex cathedra"

  • Thread starter Thread starter WatchfulPilgrim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WatchfulPilgrim

Guest
I’m sure I’ve probably asked this in the past but don’t remember the answer and can’t easily find it doing a search…

How is one to know which encyclicals are infallible pronouncements/“ex cathedra”? Are not all encyclicals which speak of matters pertaining to faith and morals unchangeable?

Thanks~
 
An entire encyclical is not going to be ex cathedra teaching, as it is extremely unlikely that every statement in an encyclical is going to be meant as a solemn definition on a matter of faith and morals that is binding on the entire Church.

Of course, any encyclical may reiterate longstanding teachings of the Church that are already infallibly held, even if the mention in the encyclical does not constitute a formal definition of such a teaching. For example, any affirmation of the divinity of Christ would be an infallible statement because that is an unchanging truth of the faith, but it would not be a special use of the pope’s protection of infallibility while speaking ex cathedra.

It’s universally agreed that the definition of the Assumption of Mary in 1950 is an ex cathedra pronouncement. The definition of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854 is the same, though it was performed before the doctrine of papal infallibility was itself formally defined at Vatican I (1870). Formal canonizations of saints by the Pope are likewise held infallible. I don’t believe the documents proclaiming any of those are called encyclicals, though.

Beyond that, things are less certain, since the pronouncements in question would have been made before (sometimes long before) the conditions for papal infallibility were set forth.

Are there any particular statements from certain encyclicals that you are curious about?

Usagi
 
I have heard that ex cathedra has only been used twice in 2000 years. Could be wrong though…
 
From Wikipedia:

An encyclical was originally a circular letter sent to all the churches of a particular area in the ancient Christian church. At that time, the word could be used for a letter sent out by any bishop. The word comes from Latin encyclia (from the Greek “en kyklo, ἐν κύκλῳ”) meaning “general” or “encircling”, which is also the origin of the word “encyclopedia”.

For the modern Roman Catholic Church a Papal encyclical, in the strictest sense, is a letter, usually treating some aspect of Catholic doctrine, sent by the Pope and addressed either to the Catholic bishops of a particular area or, more normally, to the bishops of the world; however, the form of the address can vary widely, and often designates a wider audience. Papal encyclicals usually take the form of a Papal brief due to their more personal nature as opposed to the formal Papal bull. Papal encyclicals are so famous that the term encyclical is used almost exclusively for those sent out by the Pope. The title of the encyclical is usually taken from its first few words.

Within Catholicism in recent times, an encyclical is generally used for significant issues, and is second in importance only to the highest ranking document now issued by popes, an Apostolic Constitution. However, the designation ‘encyclical’ does not always denote such a degree of significance. The archives at the Vatican website currently classify certain encyclicals as “Apostolic Exhortations”. This informal term generally indicates documents with a broader audience than the bishops alone.

Pope Pius XII held that Papal Encyclicals, even when they are not ex cathedra, can nonetheless be sufficiently authoritative to end theological debate on a particular question:

“ It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.

—Humani Generis ”

Papal use of encyclicals

Encyclicals indicate high Papal priority for a issue at a given time. Pontiffs define when, and under which circumstances encyclicals should be issued. They may choose to issue an apostolic constitution, bull, encyclical, apostolic letter or give a papal speech. Popes have differed on the use of encyclicals: on the issue of birth control and contraception, Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Casti Connubii, while Pope Pius XII gave a speech to midwives and the medical profession, clarifying his position on the issue. [1] Pope Paul VI published an encyclical Humanae Vitae on the same topic. On matters of war and peace, Pope Pius XII issued ten encyclicals, mostly after 1945, three of them protesting the Soviet invasion of Hungary in order to crackdown on the Hungarian Revolution in 1956: Datis Nuperrime, Sertum Laetitiae, Luctuosissimi Eventus. Pope Paul VI spoke about the war in Vietnam and Pope John Paul II, issued a protest against the war in Iraq using the medium of speeches. On social issues, Pope Leo XIII promulgated Rerum Novarum (1891), which was followed by the Quadragesimo Anno (1931) of Pius XI, and the Centesimus Annus (1991) of John Paul II. Pius XII spoke on the same topic to a consistory of cardinals, in his Christmas messages and to numerous academic and professional associations. [2]
 
I have heard that ex cathedra has only been used twice in 2000 years. Could be wrong though…
Those would be the two “easy” ones I referred to above – one since papal infallibility was itself defined, and one shortly before that fits the conditions.

That formal canonizations are considered infallible is something I only learned from Catholic Answers, but that would expand the number considerably. (I suppose it makes sense that “This person is in Heaven and can be venerated by the entire Church” does fit the conditions – formal declaration, matter of faith or morals, aimed at the entire Church.)

I know that the closing statement of Boniface VIII’s bull Unam Sanctam is often mentioned as fitting the conditions, and it is hard to see why it wouldn’t (however unpleasant the tone of it is to us today). There may likewise be other older pronouncements that fit the conditions.

Usagi
 
Ex Cathedra (Source):

Many non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, wrongly believe that the doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says, when, in reality, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare.

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII’s 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church’s magisterium [1]. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation as to which are officially ex cathedra, because the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be consulted directly on this question. For example, after Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that this might be an exercise of papal infallibility (for an example, see [2]). In response to this confusion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions [3] [4] [5], that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra teaching, saying that the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The Vatican itself has given no complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, written by Cardinals Ratzinger (the later Pope Benedict XVI) and Bertone, the prefect and secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated that this was not meant to be a complete list.

The number of infallible pronouncements by ecumenical councils is significantly greater than the number of infallible pronouncements by popes.
 
Ok, thank you. I may be even more confused now :o

So, there may have only been 2 ex cathedra teachings, or there may be more… 🤷

I am reading councils and encyclicals to try to gain a better understanding of what the church truly teaches (or at least, what teachings of the church are considered unchangeable). The Catechism references several documents, but it is possible then that if these documents were not given ex cathedra that these teachings could change?

Just trying to get to the heart of the church’s teachings…
 
I think you need to remember that the Pope is only going to officially invoke infallibility when the need is great–when fighting a heresy. That’s why we have the declarations about Mary,to fight against heresy about Jesus’ humanity and divinity. Most of the time the Pope, in writing an encyclical, is just reiterating consistant Church teaching–such as Humane Vitae–nothing there was new, it was a restatement of what the Church has always taught. Sometimes we need these reminders.

The Catechism is a reliable statement of Church teaching. Also, Dogma and Doctrine doesn’t change, but we can grow in understanding the depth of the dogma and doctrine. However, disciplines (like unmarried priesthood) can change for various reasons.
 
I think you need to remember that the Pope is only going to officially invoke infallibility when the need is great–when fighting a heresy. That’s why we have the declarations about Mary,to fight against heresy about Jesus’ humanity and divinity. Most of the time the Pope, in writing an encyclical, is just reiterating consistant Church teaching–such as Humane Vitae–nothing there was new, it was a restatement of what the Church has always taught. Sometimes we need these reminders.

The Catechism is a reliable statement of Church teaching. Also, Dogma and Doctrine doesn’t change, but we can grow in understanding the depth of the dogma and doctrine. However, disciplines (like unmarried priesthood) can change for various reasons.
Ok, let’s take Humane Vitae for an example then. What exactly if it a restatement of? Is it a reminder of some previous council or ex cathedra statement?

Just skimmed it… I see that there are numerous references to Trent, VII and several different encyclicals - showing that various components of the teaching can be found throughout church history.

Awesome, I think I’m getting somewhere…

But even if an encyclical is reiterating what the church has always taught, if that teaching was never given formally ex cathedra, can it not change? Like what about an encyclical which only cites a few saints and prior encyclicals? (no councils)

Actually, are councils ex cathedra then? It doesn’t sound, from any of the definitions given, that they are…???
 
But now, with the bishops of the whole world sitting and judging with Us, gathered together in this oecumenical Synod by Our authority in the Holy Spirit, We, having relied on the word of God, written and handed down, as We have receivedit, guarded in a holy way and accurately set forth by the Catholic Church,** from this chair of Peter**, in the sight of all, have determined to profess and to declare the saving teachingof Christ, after contrary errors have been proscribed and condemned by the power transmitted to Us by God
This statement opens the Vatican Council, 8 Dec. 1869 – 20 Oct. 1870.

Is this an unchangeable teaching? Is it not then an ex cathedra teaching?
 
I’m probably getting in over my head here, lol, but let me try…

One of the earliest forms of the Catechism is the Didache–have you ever read through it?
newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm
It outlines basic teachings of the Church, albeit, very basically.

Add that to the 10 Commandments and you have a pretty good basis for what the Church teaches. Later Catechisms just try to flesh out what those “rules” mean in the greater world. For instance the 5th commandment: You shall not murder/kill is seen in the Didache Chapter 2 <> Consistant Church teaching is to not murder or kill unjustly, however, it’s not against Church teaching to defend yourself or your family–even if death of another results.

Humanae Vitae’s focus is the transmission of human life within the marrital relationship. The teaching has it’s roots in the 6th and 10th commandments and again in the Didache. Marriage and the procreation of children is rooted in Genesis and then Jesus reiterates the importance of marriage and Paul speaks of the parrellel of Christ and the Church and the marriage of man and woman. Out of this comes the teaching on the sacramental nature of marriage and the fecundity of marriage. The Catechism can give you a bit more on the specific of marriage and better references 😃

Regarding councils, I think it depends on why they were convened and the purpose they were serving on whether they are considered infallible.

Here are some links, you may have seen them before, but what they hay 😛
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I’m sure I’m clear as mud!
 
The more I consider these responses…

What about the canon of the Bible? Changeable?

What about the claim of infallibility? Changeable?

This statement is really perplexing, particularly the bolded part:
For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation as to which are officially ex cathedra, because the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be consulted directly on this question. For example, after Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that this might be an exercise of papal infallibility (for an example, see [2]). In response to this confusion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions [3] [4] [5], thatrdinatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra teaching, saying that the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.
So, I have to consult the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to find out about modern-day documents??? And how can the contents of the letter be said to have been taught infallibly if there is no reference to anything infallible? If there have only been a scant few teachings ever pronounced infallible?

One of the reasons I often hear for the need of an infallible authority outside of Scripture is so that the faithful can better understand Scripture and Tradition as the Apostles originally taught (and which man often distorts), but it looks like a grueling process to actually find what the church teaches infallibly, what is changeable, etc… This leaves so much room for more misinterpretation. Indeed I find many contradictory understandings of Catholic teachings/encyclicals/councils/etc… It doesn’t look much better to me than multi-denominational Protestantism 🤷
 
I’m probably getting in over my head here, lol, but let me try…

One of the earliest forms of the Catechism is the Didache–have you ever read through it?
newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm
It outlines basic teachings of the Church, albeit, very basically.

Add that to the 10 Commandments and you have a pretty good basis for what the Church teaches. Later Catechisms just try to flesh out what those “rules” mean in the greater world. For instance the 5th commandment: You shall not murder/kill is seen in the Didache Chapter 2 <> Consistant Church teaching is to not murder or kill unjustly, however, it’s not against Church teaching to defend yourself or your family–even if death of another results.

Humanae Vitae’s focus is the transmission of human life within the marrital relationship. The teaching has it’s roots in the 6th and 10th commandments and again in the Didache. Marriage and the procreation of children is rooted in Genesis and then Jesus reiterates the importance of marriage and Paul speaks of the parrellel of Christ and the Church and the marriage of man and woman. Out of this comes the teaching on the sacramental nature of marriage and the fecundity of marriage. The Catechism can give you a bit more on the specific of marriage and better references 😃

Regarding councils, I think it depends on why they were convened and the purpose they were serving on whether they are considered infallible.

Here are some links, you may have seen them before, but what they hay 😛
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I’m sure I’m clear as mud!
Thanks again~

I see what you are trying to say, but some encyclicals are confusing and some claim to be restating what the church has always taught, and then later letters seem to contradict those… I was hoping any contradiction in encyclicals could be explained simply by the fact that one of them (or even both) were never considered infallible teaching to begin with, but that does not seem to be the case afterall.

And please don’t ask me to point to anything specific b/c I don’t want to start a scandal. I’d rather focus on making sure I understand how to determine if there in fact even is a contradiction without some sort of explanation - I assume b/c I’m misunderstanding which letters are infallible and which aren’t.
 
Ok, let’s take Humane Vitae for an example then. What exactly if it a restatement of? Is it a reminder of some previous council or ex cathedra statement?

Just skimmed it… I see that there are numerous references to Trent, VII and several different encyclicals - showing that various components of the teaching can be found throughout church history.
It seems to me that the whole of section II, “Doctrinal Principles”, is a restatement of teachings regarding a number of topics related to marriage and the transmission of life. The reminder is of the constant teaching of the the Church, not necessarily that of a specific proclamations.
Awesome, I think I’m getting somewhere…

But even if an encyclical is reiterating what the church has always taught, if that teaching was never given formally ex cathedra, can it not change? Like what about an encyclical which only cites a few saints and prior encyclicals? (no councils)
No, because being proclaimed "ex cathadra (meaning, “from the chair”) is not the only way teachings are declared infallible.
 
No, because being proclaimed "ex cathadra (meaning, “from the chair”) is not the only way teachings are declared infallible.
So how is one to determine which teachings are declared infallible?
 
The more I consider these responses…

What about the canon of the Bible? Changeable?
No.
What about the claim of infallibility? Changeable?
No.
This statement is really perplexing, particularly the bolded part: So, I have to consult the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to find out about modern-day documents???
Yes, if you are confused as to its meaning.
And how can the contents of the letter be said to have been taught infallibly if there is no reference to anything infallible?
Because that is not how something is determined to be infallible.
If there have only been a scant few teachings ever pronounced infallible?
Why do you think there are “scant few”? Ott’s work on Catholic dogma has quite a list of dogmas.
One of the reasons I often hear for the need of an infallible authority outside of Scripture is so that the faithful can better understand Scripture and Tradition as the Apostles originally taught (and which man often distorts), but it looks like a grueling process to actually find what the church teaches infallibly, what is changeable, etc… This leaves so much room for more misinterpretation. Indeed I find many contradictory understandings of Catholic teachings/encyclicals/councils/etc… It doesn’t look much better to me than multi-denominational Protestantism 🤷
I agree that this pursuit could be very gruelling. So I would ask why would one under take the task unless one were a theologian who was attempting to understand how a previous teaching applied to a new circumstance. E.g., how do the teachings in Humanae Vitae apply to ebryonic stem cell research.

I disagree that the Church has any contradictory understanding. It’s members, even some in high standing, may be confused and present things in a contradictory way, but the Church is not confused and does not present things in a contradictory way. I have yet to encounter any contradictory instruction in the CCC.
 
Just realized something…

Have you tried asking an Apologist on CAF about infallibility and infallible teachings?
 
Thank you both. That article will take me a bit to digest…

Why is it necessary to know which teachings are declared infallible?
It is necessary to me to know which are infallible b/c I see contradicition between certain encyclicals. And I really, really don’t want to disclose which until I understand this first.

Bad enough I was seeing contradiction between Catholic teaching and Scripture, I’m now making an effort to look more deeply at church teaching and I’m getting more contradiction and confusion…
 
Just realized something…

Have you tried asking an Apologist on CAF about infallibility and infallible teachings?
No - I didn’t realize it was that complicated. I may do so. Thanks for the recommendation~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top