T
Teakafrog
Guest
DH was wondering after a chat with an evangelical friend, does anyone know where ALL the official ex cathedra statements of the popes would be listed? We’ve tried searching, but to no avail.
- Status
A
Amadeus
Guest
Based on Vatican I’s definition, there are only 2 ***ex cathedra ***pronouncements of the Popes thus far:
(1) The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception; and
(2) The Dogma of the Assumption.
Of course there are many other dogmas of the Catholic Church but those were pronounced in other ways. (Cf. Dr. Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.”)
(1) The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception; and
(2) The Dogma of the Assumption.
Of course there are many other dogmas of the Catholic Church but those were pronounced in other ways. (Cf. Dr. Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.”)
R
rr1213
Guest
Yes, but what about infallable statements/doctrines by the Magisterium?
M
momstheword
Guest
This is, by far, the most challenging part of defending the faith for me. I’ve been asked how we know what we must believe if we don’t even know what statements are “ex cathedra”.
From the inside, being a Catholic, I don’t find this so difficult, but I’m sure for someone looking in it poses quite a problem.
From the inside, being a Catholic, I don’t find this so difficult, but I’m sure for someone looking in it poses quite a problem.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I think people get hung up on “ex cathedra” as if it were the sole source of authority. IMHO an “ex cathedra” statement is not a theological discovery but a resolution of existing knowledge about God, based on His revelation in the Scriptures and Tradition and as guided by the Holy Spirit. Catholics are supposed to operate in trust that the Church knows what it is talking about when it teaches on anything concerning faith and morals, that is, that it is authoritative. “Ex cathedra” statements are only part of that authority.
Not that I can speak about this authoritatively.
D
dcdurel
Guest
This is the best explanation I have seen
By Jeffrey Mirus
Infallibility is the protection given by the Holy Spirit to
the pope so that he will never teach error in matters of faith
and morals. The First Vatican Council, which defined papal
infallibility in 1870, was acting in response to a challenge to
the doctrine which has always been true and was accepted and
practiced from the earliest times. The evidence for papal
infallibility comes from three sources: Scripture, history and
logic.
First, Scripture clearly shows that Christ intended a special
role for Peter in the establishment of the Church, and special
divine protection for Peter in the exercise of his authority.
This is evidenced in passages such as: “Thou art Peter and upon
this rock I will build my Church and the powers of hell will not
prevail against it…to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of
Heaven and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven;
whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” (Matthew
16:17-19); “Do you love me, Peter… Feed my sheep.” (John
21:15-17); and “I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may
not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren.” (Luke
22:31-32)
Second, history shows that from the earliest times the bishops
of Rome acted as if they had special authority in succession from
St. Peter, and the rest of the Church accepted their authority as
if they knew it was genuine. Thus Pope Clement wrote to settle a
problem in the Church of Corinth before the end of the 1st
century. The Church Fathers, too, repeatedly attest to the
authority of the Roman See. And the Popes always had the decisive
word at general councils, as when the Fathers of the Council of
Chalcedon in 451 A.D. accepted the Papal definition of the two
natures of Christ and said, “Peter has spoken through Leo.”
Third, logic tells us that since Peter had a special commission
and special powers from Christ, these powers must be essential to
the Church. If these special and essential powers were to pass
out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer
with His Church and that the “powers of Hell” had indeed
prevailed. Since Christ knew that Peter would not live until the
end of time, he must have intended that the successors to Peter
have these powers.
Since the successors of Peter have the same authority, which
comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the
authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to
salvation that is, in faith or morals. If a Pope could bind the
faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of
Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the
error under Christ’s own authority. Therefore, the logic of the
situation demands that Peter’s power of confirming the brethren
must be an infallible power.
Vatican I clarified what was at that time a confusing issue,
but did so by way of stating clearly what Christ’s teaching was,
not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully
enumerated the conditions under which the Pope is in fact
infallible the same conditions which logic demands, which
Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down
through the centuries.
When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his
supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the
whole Church, he is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. His
teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching
which he articulates is termed “irreformable” which means it can
never be changed because it is certainly true.
(Jeffrey A. Mirus holds a Ph.D. in History of Theology and is
system operator of Catholic Resources Network, the world’s
largest Catholic online and information service system. CRNET can
be reached by modem (1-703-791-4336) or Telnet CRNET.ORG.)
Thus, the Popes always teach
infallibly unless one of the four criteria are missing.
By Jeffrey Mirus
Infallibility is the protection given by the Holy Spirit to
the pope so that he will never teach error in matters of faith
and morals. The First Vatican Council, which defined papal
infallibility in 1870, was acting in response to a challenge to
the doctrine which has always been true and was accepted and
practiced from the earliest times. The evidence for papal
infallibility comes from three sources: Scripture, history and
logic.
First, Scripture clearly shows that Christ intended a special
role for Peter in the establishment of the Church, and special
divine protection for Peter in the exercise of his authority.
This is evidenced in passages such as: “Thou art Peter and upon
this rock I will build my Church and the powers of hell will not
prevail against it…to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of
Heaven and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven;
whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” (Matthew
16:17-19); “Do you love me, Peter… Feed my sheep.” (John
21:15-17); and “I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may
not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren.” (Luke
22:31-32)
Second, history shows that from the earliest times the bishops
of Rome acted as if they had special authority in succession from
St. Peter, and the rest of the Church accepted their authority as
if they knew it was genuine. Thus Pope Clement wrote to settle a
problem in the Church of Corinth before the end of the 1st
century. The Church Fathers, too, repeatedly attest to the
authority of the Roman See. And the Popes always had the decisive
word at general councils, as when the Fathers of the Council of
Chalcedon in 451 A.D. accepted the Papal definition of the two
natures of Christ and said, “Peter has spoken through Leo.”
Third, logic tells us that since Peter had a special commission
and special powers from Christ, these powers must be essential to
the Church. If these special and essential powers were to pass
out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer
with His Church and that the “powers of Hell” had indeed
prevailed. Since Christ knew that Peter would not live until the
end of time, he must have intended that the successors to Peter
have these powers.
Since the successors of Peter have the same authority, which
comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the
authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to
salvation that is, in faith or morals. If a Pope could bind the
faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of
Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the
error under Christ’s own authority. Therefore, the logic of the
situation demands that Peter’s power of confirming the brethren
must be an infallible power.
Vatican I clarified what was at that time a confusing issue,
but did so by way of stating clearly what Christ’s teaching was,
not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully
enumerated the conditions under which the Pope is in fact
infallible the same conditions which logic demands, which
Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down
through the centuries.
When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his
supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the
whole Church, he is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. His
teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching
which he articulates is termed “irreformable” which means it can
never be changed because it is certainly true.
(Jeffrey A. Mirus holds a Ph.D. in History of Theology and is
system operator of Catholic Resources Network, the world’s
largest Catholic online and information service system. CRNET can
be reached by modem (1-703-791-4336) or Telnet CRNET.ORG.)
Thus, the Popes always teach
infallibly unless one of the four criteria are missing.
T
Teakafrog
Guest
Huh, I guess so. I had just never thought of it that way.
I knew the “2 biggies”, but we were just wondering if there had been any other ‘official’ teachings. Guess there are. All of them!
B
batteddy
Guest
Not all teachings of the Pope are really infallible. Obviously, on some “less essentials” like political theory, economics…Popes have disagreed, and we are really free to choose either if we way their arguments with intellectual honesty.
The Popes are of equal authority (ie, there is nothing really special about “the present pope”) and until one makes an infallible statement on an issue…we are really free to make our own judgement about two disagreeing teachings coming from the same level of authority.
That being said, I think there is some misunderstanding about infallible pronouncements.
If you are talking about AFTER the First Vatican Council declared papal infallibility (in 1870)…there is probably only the Assumption by Pius XII in 1950.
The Immaculate Conception in 1854 IS a historical example of a papal infallible statement ex cathedra…but it was before the dogma of papal infallibility was declared dogma (which doesn’t mean it wasn’t infallible…it was. The popes have always been infallible when speaking ex cathedra, whether the fact of their infallibility was yet declared dogma or not)
But if you are going to count any before 1870, then there are many. Though the Immaculate Conception is probably the best example, others include the necessesity of submission to the pope for salvation (at least ordinarily) by Boniface VIII (though this is really just an obvious conclusion based on the facts that the Church is the official means of salvation, and that the Pope is the ordinary head of said Church) and others.
The Denzinger “Sources of Catholic Doctrine” has all the relavant documents considered as authoritative decrees (at least up to vatican ii…though collections of concilliar and post-concilliar documents are also available)
The Popes are of equal authority (ie, there is nothing really special about “the present pope”) and until one makes an infallible statement on an issue…we are really free to make our own judgement about two disagreeing teachings coming from the same level of authority.
That being said, I think there is some misunderstanding about infallible pronouncements.
If you are talking about AFTER the First Vatican Council declared papal infallibility (in 1870)…there is probably only the Assumption by Pius XII in 1950.
The Immaculate Conception in 1854 IS a historical example of a papal infallible statement ex cathedra…but it was before the dogma of papal infallibility was declared dogma (which doesn’t mean it wasn’t infallible…it was. The popes have always been infallible when speaking ex cathedra, whether the fact of their infallibility was yet declared dogma or not)
But if you are going to count any before 1870, then there are many. Though the Immaculate Conception is probably the best example, others include the necessesity of submission to the pope for salvation (at least ordinarily) by Boniface VIII (though this is really just an obvious conclusion based on the facts that the Church is the official means of salvation, and that the Pope is the ordinary head of said Church) and others.
The Denzinger “Sources of Catholic Doctrine” has all the relavant documents considered as authoritative decrees (at least up to vatican ii…though collections of concilliar and post-concilliar documents are also available)
D
dcdurel
Guest
Jeffrey A. Mirus holds a Ph.D. in History of Theology
writes:
"Vatican I clarified what was at that time a confusing issue,
but did so by way of stating clearly what Christ’s teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope is in fact infallible the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.
When the Pope
(1) intends to teach
(2) by virtue of his supreme authority
(3) on a matter of faith and morals
(4) to the whole Church,
he is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching
which he articulates is termed “irreformable” which means it can never be changed because it is certainly true."
Thus, according to the clarification by Dr. Mirus, the Popes always teach infallibly unless one of the four criteria are missing.
B
batteddy
Guest
Yes…I think this only happened at the Assumption, really.
The Pope’s often times do not teach to the whole church, or when they do speak to the whole Church…they often times do not intend to use the most Supreme of their authority.
The Pope’s often times do not teach to the whole church, or when they do speak to the whole Church…they often times do not intend to use the most Supreme of their authority.
T
Teakafrog
Guest
True. But the books, letters, documents, etc that they write for general use–their teachings, they are not claimed infallible, but again, with the prompting of the Holy Spirit they surely must be true. Of course, if Benedict happens to say who’s going to win the world series, or that German food is the best in the world, that is not a teaching, so would not be infallible.
D
dcdurel
Guest
I quoted Dr. Mirus:
When the Pope
(1) intends to teach
(2) by virtue of his supreme authority
(3) on a matter of faith and morals
(4) to the whole Church,
he is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching
which he articulates is termed “irreformable” which means it can never be changed because it is certainly true."
Thus, according to the clarification by Dr. Mirus, the Popes always teach infallibly unless one of the four criteria are missing.
Same with Humanae Vitae, of Pope Paul VI, Redemptor Hominis, Mission of the Redeemer, Veritatis Splendor, etc. of Pope John Paul II, etc.
Thus, unless you can show that the Pope was not teaching, or that he was not acting as head of the Church, (as Pope) or that he was not teaching for all Christians, or it had nothing to do with faith or morals, then we must assume he is teaching infallibly.
This is not too difficult. I don’t can’t understand why in the world people try to limit the pope to only a few doctrines, the assumption and immaculate conception, when they can’t find any criteria that are missing from the other teachings. Vatican I and Vatican II are very clear. The vast majority of the time the Popes are teaching infallibly.
What is missing in Humanae Vitae, or Veritatis Splendor, or Redemptor Hominis, etc, etc, etc. ?
Nothing. They are all the result of the Pope’s infallible teaching authority.
When the Pope
(1) intends to teach
(2) by virtue of his supreme authority
(3) on a matter of faith and morals
(4) to the whole Church,
he is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching
which he articulates is termed “irreformable” which means it can never be changed because it is certainly true."
Thus, according to the clarification by Dr. Mirus, the Popes always teach infallibly unless one of the four criteria are missing.
The majority of the time they are teaching for the whole Church and they are teaching as Pope. For example, Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical on love, was for the whole Church, and he was teaching as Pope, not as a private theologian. Thus, infallible.
Same with Humanae Vitae, of Pope Paul VI, Redemptor Hominis, Mission of the Redeemer, Veritatis Splendor, etc. of Pope John Paul II, etc.
Thus, unless you can show that the Pope was not teaching, or that he was not acting as head of the Church, (as Pope) or that he was not teaching for all Christians, or it had nothing to do with faith or morals, then we must assume he is teaching infallibly.
This is not too difficult. I don’t can’t understand why in the world people try to limit the pope to only a few doctrines, the assumption and immaculate conception, when they can’t find any criteria that are missing from the other teachings. Vatican I and Vatican II are very clear. The vast majority of the time the Popes are teaching infallibly.
What is missing in Humanae Vitae, or Veritatis Splendor, or Redemptor Hominis, etc, etc, etc. ?
Nothing. They are all the result of the Pope’s infallible teaching authority.
B
batteddy
Guest
Well, I don’t know why they would…but a lot of the times, Popes seem to limit their authority delibrately. I don’t know why, perhaps because they fear their own authority, but they often don’t think that they’re using the “big guns” even when they would be except for this apparently conscious limitation of themselves (I admit all the other criteria are met)
What I mean to say is…if you asked Pope Benedict “was* Deus Caritas Est *an infallible decree?” He’d probably not give you a straightforward “yes” answer.
It’s like when John Paul made the male-only priesthood statement. The vatican said it wasn’t an ex cathedra decree, but nevertheless was merely restating an already infallible doctrine under ordinary magisterium.
The Vatican has never claimed Humanae Vitae as a statement of ex cathedra dogma (even though I fully accept it). It seems odd. If I were them, I’d say “this is infallible now, so obey”. But they don’t. They themselves class it subtly differently. I think if the Pope doesn’t say “this is to be held as dogma by virtue of my authority as pope” even the Vatican doesn’t think it is. I think the Pope has to intend to teach authoritatively, not just “as Pope” as in “as the supreme administrator” but specifically as “Dogma-definer”. Something seems a bit off about it, but that’s the way the Pope’s have always treated it.
Even in encyclicals that did clearly define Dogma (the immaculate conception, etc), the vatican has stated that the infallibility does not cover the whole document but only the very limited (few sentence) “Dogma clause” defining the dogma.
What I mean to say is…if you asked Pope Benedict “was* Deus Caritas Est *an infallible decree?” He’d probably not give you a straightforward “yes” answer.
It’s like when John Paul made the male-only priesthood statement. The vatican said it wasn’t an ex cathedra decree, but nevertheless was merely restating an already infallible doctrine under ordinary magisterium.
The Vatican has never claimed Humanae Vitae as a statement of ex cathedra dogma (even though I fully accept it). It seems odd. If I were them, I’d say “this is infallible now, so obey”. But they don’t. They themselves class it subtly differently. I think if the Pope doesn’t say “this is to be held as dogma by virtue of my authority as pope” even the Vatican doesn’t think it is. I think the Pope has to intend to teach authoritatively, not just “as Pope” as in “as the supreme administrator” but specifically as “Dogma-definer”. Something seems a bit off about it, but that’s the way the Pope’s have always treated it.
Even in encyclicals that did clearly define Dogma (the immaculate conception, etc), the vatican has stated that the infallibility does not cover the whole document but only the very limited (few sentence) “Dogma clause” defining the dogma.
R
RyanL
Guest
FYI,
All canonizations are infallible proclamations.
God Bless,
RyanL
All canonizations are infallible proclamations.
God Bless,
RyanL
R
rr1213
Guest
What about mixed statements, such as mixing faith, morals and politics? An anathema on an prince who sends his troops against the temporal home of the Papacy, the Papal States? More recently, condemnation on anyone who attacks Rome once the Germans declared it an open city in WW2?
J
Jasny
Guest
the book “fundementals of catholic dogma” by Fr. Ott least dogma defide and different grades.
A small book put out by father most list all dogma ect. I foregot the name of the book
D
dcdurel
Guest
You are adding to the requirments in Vatican I when you say the Pope must say he is teaching infallibly, (no where does Vatican I say the Pope must declare he is teaching infallibly) or the Vatican must say the Pope is teaching infallilbly.( the Vatican has no authority to determine if the Pope is speaking infallibly, for to do so would make the Vatican above the Pope) There is no such requirement. There are only 4 requirments.
1.The Pope must be intending to teach.
2.He must be teaching as the Pope, and not as a private theologian
3. It must be on a matter pertaining to faith or morals.
4. It must be addressed to the whole Church.
There are NO OTHER REQUIREMENTS. Neither the Vatican, nor other theologians, nor any Cardinals nor the Pope himself can add a fifth requirement which says “now I am teaching infallibly”.
If that were necessary, then how do we know the Pope is infallible when he says “now I am speaking infallibly”?
Does he have to say, I was speaking infallibly when I said, “now I am speaking infallibly”
If so, how do we know that he was speaking infallibly when he said, "I was speaking infallibly when I said, “now I was speaking infallibly”
Where does it end? Does each of these statements fullfill the four requirements?
Code:
That is nonsense. Vatican I make it clear enough. There is no fifth requirment.
There is no one above the Pope, such as theologians, who have the right to pronounce judments on when the Pope is speaking infallibly.
Vatican I is very clear, unless one of the four requirements are missing, the Pope is teaching infallibly.
Thus, **all the encyclicals,** in which the Popes teach, as head of the whole Church, on matters of faith or morals, which are intended for the whole Church, are the result of infallible teachings.
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
dcdurel is right. The non-Catholic demand for an infallible list of infallible teachings is a distraction from the shipwreck-out-of-the-dock that is Bible-alone. We don’t need an infallible list because we have a living and *authoritative *apostolic Church that is the Mystical Body of Christ, not a bunch of instructions like a stereo manual.
G
Genesis315
Guest
There are more than just the two famous ones. Only one of those two, the IC, came before the First Vatican Council–the Council Fathers however did not base their definition on just one instance (that would be pretty absurd, no?). I have studied papal teaching extensively and have come across more. Here is one great example off the top of my head (St. Leo the Great’s Tome is another good example):
Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (On the Beatific Vision of God)1336
Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (On the Beatific Vision of God)1336
G
Genesis315
Guest
You aren’t quite describing it accurately. Vatican I says not just teaching, but when “defining” a doctrine to be held by all the faithful. Definitive statements are not found in all encyclicals. In fact, the First Vatican Council, in it’s study of this issue, had found a handful of popes who taught heresy.
A great example goes with the Constitution I posted above by Benedict XII. His predecessor, John XXII caused confusion by teaching that man would not experience the beatific vision until after the Second Coming. To end all confusion, Benedict XII laid down definitively the once and for all dogmatic teaching on this subject.
- Status